A. There shall be no liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall rise against, the fund, any member insurer, the board or its agents or employees, the director or representatives of the director for any action taken in the performance of their powers and duties pursuant to this article.
B. The board and its agents or employees shall be indemnified by the fund against all expenses incurred in the defense of any action, suit or proceeding brought against such person on account of any action taken in the performance of the powers and duties of such person pursuant to this article, unless such person is finally adjudged to have committed a breach of duty involving gross negligence, bad faith, dishonesty, wilful malfeasance or reckless disregard of the responsibilities of his or her office. In the event of settlement before the final adjudication, such indemnity shall be provided only if the board is advised by independent counsel selected by the board that such person did not, in the counsel's opinion, commit such a breach of duty.
C. The fund's reimbursement of such expenses of indemnification shall be prorated and paid for by the member insurers in the proportion that the net direct written premiums of each member insurer for the calendar year preceding the commencement of such action, suit or proceeding bears to the net direct written premiums of all member insurers for the preceding calendar year.
Notes of Decisions
Bills v. Arizona Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 984 P.2d 574 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 23× “1990), the trial court ruled that plaintiffs tort claims against the Fund are barred by § 20-675. The court further ruled that § 20-675 is “not unconstitutional.”
Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners AD, 747 P.2d 1218 (Ariz. 1987).
· cites it 3× “The Bar-mats now allege that the attorney breached the duty of “undeviating and single allegiance” he owed them by giving the Fund advice that was contrary to the Barmats’ best interests, by disclosing confidential information to the Fund, by placing its interests ahead of the…”
Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners AD, 747 P.2d 1214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 6× “The trial court found that Hochuli was immune from suit pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-675(A). We disagree and reverse.”
Clark Equip. Co. v. Arizona Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 943 P.2d 793 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “section 20-675 immunized the Fund from tort claims, such as bad faith and misrepresentation, reasoning in part that the legislature had not provided a method for the Fund to charge its member insurers in order to fund such liabilities.”
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N, 528 P.2d 839 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 4× “§ 20-661 to § 20-675, as added by the Laws of 1970, Chapter 78, is unconstitutional under several provisions of the Arizona Constitution: (1) Article 4, Part 2, Section 19, Clause 13 which prohibits the legislature from enacting a special law granting to any corporation or…”
Clark Equip. v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar., 943 P.2d 793 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “section 20-675 immunized the Fund from tort claims, such as bad faith and misrepresentation, reasoning in part that the legislature had not provided a method for the Fund to charge its member insurers in order to fund such liabilities.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-675(A) — 6 cases
Bills v. Arizona Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 984 P.2d 574 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“1990), the trial court ruled that plaintiffs tort claims against the Fund are barred by § 20-675. The court further ruled that § 20-675 is “not unconstitutional.”
Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners AD, 747 P.2d 1218 (Ariz. 1987).
“The Bar-mats now allege that the attorney breached the duty of “undeviating and single allegiance” he owed them by giving the Fund advice that was contrary to the Barmats’ best interests, by disclosing confidential information to the Fund, by placing its interests ahead of the…”
Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners AD, 747 P.2d 1214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“The trial court found that Hochuli was immune from suit pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-675(A). We disagree and reverse.”
Clark Equip. Co. v. Arizona Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 943 P.2d 793 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“section 20-675 immunized the Fund from tort claims, such as bad faith and misrepresentation, reasoning in part that the legislature had not provided a method for the Fund to charge its member insurers in order to fund such liabilities.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-675(B) — 1 case
Bills v. Arizona Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 984 P.2d 574 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“1990), the trial court ruled that plaintiffs tort claims against the Fund are barred by § 20-675. The court further ruled that § 20-675 is “not unconstitutional.”
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.