Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-1503 (2026)

Arizona standard fire policy

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. No policy of fire insurance covering property located in this state shall be made, issued or delivered unless it conforms as to all provisions and the sequence thereof with the basic policy commonly known as the New York standard fire policy, edition of 1943. Such policy is designated as the Arizona standard fire policy.

B. The Arizona standard fire policy may exclude coverage for loss by fire or other perils insured against if the loss is caused directly or indirectly by terrorism and involves risks other than a type of risk to which article 12 of this chapter applies.

C. The director shall file in his office and thereafter maintain so on file, a true copy of the Arizona standard fire policy, designated as such and bearing the director's authenticating certificate and signature and the date of filing. Provisions to be contained on the first page of the policy may be rewritten, supplemented and rearranged to facilitate policy issuance and to include matter which may otherwise properly be added by endorsement.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2022 · leading case: Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co., 158 P.3d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co., 158 P.3d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 11× “By law, however, inland marine insurance policies are exempt from the Standard Fire Policy requirements imposed by A.R.S. § 20-1503. The exemp *84 tion is found in A.”

Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 73 P.3d 1252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 20-1503(A) (2002). 1 The Standard Policy contains the following provision regarding hazards increased by the insured: “[T]his Company shall not be liable for loss occurring .”

Tritschler v. Allstate Ins., 144 P.3d 519 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Section 20-1503, A.R.S., provides that all fire insurance policies issued in Arizona must conform to the 1943 version of the New York standard fire policy and that any such policy is to be designated as the “Arizona standard fire policy.”

GRANITE STATE INS. v. Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 609 P.2d 90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Fourth, in that A.R.S. § 20-1503(A) requires that all fire insurance policies covering property in this state conform to all the provisions of the New York standard fire policy, it is logical and consistent to use the New York Rule to determine if and when a loss has occurred…”

Lukes v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 455 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (D. Ariz. 2006). “S”) § 20-1503 (West 2002), requires all fire insurance policies in the State of Arizona to conform with the “New York Standard fire policy, edition of 1943.”

N. Ins. Co. of New York v. Mabry, 419 P.2d 347 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 2× “Both policies involved here are standard fire insurance policies, issued in accordance with A.R.S. § 20-1503, and as such are contracts that may be terminated either by the insured upon request, or by the company upon notice, or by mutual consent of the parties independently of…”

Stankova v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins., 788 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 20-1503. If a policy conflicts with the provisions in the standard policy, the standard policy provisions govern.”

Gibbons v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 466 P.2d 36 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “This limitation period is found in the Arizona Standard Fire Policy, A.R.S. § 20-1503. Plaintiff admitted its existence in his first amended complaint and by reference in a requested admission dated February 13, 1968, question No.”

Hartford Fire Ins. Corp. of New York v. Elec. Dist. No. 4, 452 P.2d 539 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “we find it, not considering it critical to the outcome. We believe it to be at least arguable that this language could serve to extend, but not limit, coverage in that it is not a part of the New York Standard Fire Policy adopted in this state.”

W. Agric. Ins. v. Indus. Indem. Ins., 838 P.2d 1353 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-1503, every fire insurance policy issued in Arizona must conform with the provisions of the New York standard fire policy.”

W. Agr. Ins. v. Indus. Indem. Ins., 838 P.2d 1353 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-1503, every fire insurance policy issued in Arizona must conform with the provisions of the New York standard fire policy.”

Adams v. N. Ins. Co. of New York, 493 P.2d 504 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 20-1503 designates “the New York standard fire policy, edition of 1943” as the Arizona standard fire policy.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-1503(A) — 5 cases

Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co., 158 P.3d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “By law, however, inland marine insurance policies are exempt from the Standard Fire Policy requirements imposed by A.R.S. § 20-1503. The exemp *84 tion is found in A.”

Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 73 P.3d 1252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 20-1503(A) (2002). 1 The Standard Policy contains the following provision regarding hazards increased by the insured: “[T]his Company shall not be liable for loss occurring .”

GRANITE STATE INS. v. Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 609 P.2d 90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “Fourth, in that A.R.S. § 20-1503(A) requires that all fire insurance policies covering property in this state conform to all the provisions of the New York standard fire policy, it is logical and consistent to use the New York Rule to determine if and when a loss has occurred…”

Granite State Ins. v. Employers Mut. Ins., 609 P.2d 90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).

Stone & Kelso LLC v. Allied Ins. Co. of Am. (D. Ariz. 2022).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-1503(B) — 1 case

Stone & Kelso LLC v. Allied Ins. Co. of Am. (D. Ariz. 2022).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-1503(C) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.