A. The transaction of business in violation of section 20-401.01 by an insurer does not impair the validity of any act or contract of the insurer and does not prevent the insurer from defending any action at law or suit in equity in any court of this state, except that no insurer transacting insurance business in this state without a certificate of authority is permitted to maintain an action in any court of this state to enforce any right, claim or demand arising out of the transaction of the business until the insurer obtains a certificate of authority.
B. If an insurer transacting business in violation of section 20-401.01 fails to pay any claim or loss within the provisions of the insurance contract, any person who acted directly or indirectly as an insurance producer for or otherwise represented or aided the insurer in the solicitation, negotiation, procurement or effectuation of the insurance contract or renewal of the contract is liable to the insured for the full amount of the claim or loss in the manner provided by the provisions of the insurance contract.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Arizona Pension Plan., 739 P.2d 1373 (Ariz. 1987).
· cites it 18× “The clear objective of the insurance code in general and § 20-402 in particular is to protect consumers from unauthorized insurers, even at the expense of agents who, in good faith, sold illegal policies.”
State v. Arizona Pension Plan., 739 P.2d 1369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 17× “Plaintiffs have no standing to sue on behalf of the insureds under A.R.S. §§ 20-402 or 20-142(A) (apart from a class action which was denied by Judge Strand on 12/28/79).”
REM Constr., Inc. v. Houghton, 783 P.2d 261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“The validity of insurance contracts issued by “unauthorized” insurers is previously affirmed in § 20-402(A). Were this the only purpose of § 20-410, it would be mere surplusage.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-402(A) — 3 cases
State v. Arizona Pension Plan., 739 P.2d 1373 (Ariz. 1987).
“The clear objective of the insurance code in general and § 20-402 in particular is to protect consumers from unauthorized insurers, even at the expense of agents who, in good faith, sold illegal policies.”
State v. Arizona Pension Plan., 739 P.2d 1369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“Plaintiffs have no standing to sue on behalf of the insureds under A.R.S. §§ 20-402 or 20-142(A) (apart from a class action which was denied by Judge Strand on 12/28/79).”
REM Constr., Inc. v. Houghton, 783 P.2d 261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“The validity of insurance contracts issued by “unauthorized” insurers is previously affirmed in § 20-402(A). Were this the only purpose of § 20-410, it would be mere surplusage.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-402(B) — 2 cases
State v. Arizona Pension Plan., 739 P.2d 1373 (Ariz. 1987).
“The clear objective of the insurance code in general and § 20-402 in particular is to protect consumers from unauthorized insurers, even at the expense of agents who, in good faith, sold illegal policies.”
State v. Arizona Pension Plan., 739 P.2d 1369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“Plaintiffs have no standing to sue on behalf of the insureds under A.R.S. §§ 20-402 or 20-142(A) (apart from a class action which was denied by Judge Strand on 12/28/79).”
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.