Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 20
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-300 (2026)

Reciprocity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

20-300. Reciprocity

A. The director shall waive any requirements, except the requirements prescribed in section 20-287, for a nonresident license applicant who holds a license in good standing from the applicant's home state if the applicant's home state issues nonresident licenses to residents of this state on the same basis.

B. A nonresident insurance producer who satisfies the continuing education requirements for a licensed insurance producer in the producer's home state also satisfies this state's continuing education requirements if the nonresident producer's home state recognizes the satisfaction of its continuing education requirements imposed on producers from this state on the same basis.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1982–1989 · leading case: Sparks v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins., 647 P.2d 1127 (Ariz. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sparks v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins., 647 P.2d 1127 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 8× “Defendants argue this instruction was erroneous because Bowden was an insurance broker, and under A.R.S. § 20-300, Bowden had no authority to act on behalf of defendants.”
Curran v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 752 P.2d 523 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “) Finally, A.R.S. § 20-300(A) states, “[a] broker, as such, is not an agent or other representative of an insurer and does not have power by his own acts to obligate the insurer upon any risk or with reference to any insurance transaction.”
Federoff v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 788 P.2d 104 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “While this may well be so, A.R.S. § 20-300 states that a broker, acting as such, is not an agent of the insurer.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-300(A) — 2 cases
Sparks v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins., 647 P.2d 1127 (Ariz. 1982). “Defendants argue this instruction was erroneous because Bowden was an insurance broker, and under A.R.S. § 20-300, Bowden had no authority to act on behalf of defendants.”
Curran v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 752 P.2d 523 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “) Finally, A.R.S. § 20-300(A) states, “[a] broker, as such, is not an agent or other representative of an insurer and does not have power by his own acts to obligate the insurer upon any risk or with reference to any insurance transaction.”
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.