A. A person shall not operate, move or leave standing on a highway of this state a vehicle that is carrying or transporting cargo and that is required to have a permit for excess size or weight or that is otherwise not in conformity with this chapter unless the department issued an envelope permit or the person obtained a permit pursuant to section 28-1103.
B. A person shall submit an application for an envelope permit to the director in writing on a form prescribed and furnished by the director. The application shall be verified and shall state:
1. The principal place of business of the applicant.
2. The established place of business or the place of business at or from which the business is to be conducted.
3. The vehicle identification number of and the make of the vehicle that the applicant lists as an authorized vehicle on the envelope permit.
4. Other information the director requires.
C. The director shall deny an application for an envelope permit if the applicant knowingly makes a misrepresentation, misstatement or material omission of information on the application. A person who is denied an envelope permit pursuant to this subsection is not eligible to reapply for an envelope permit for a period of up to twenty-four months from the date of the denial.
D. This article, article 18 of this chapter and department rules relating to envelope permits and overdimensional permits apply if a local authority does not issue permits pursuant to section 28-1103.
E. The department shall make its rules relating to envelope permits and overdimensional permits electronically available in a format that is the same or similar to the format prescribed by the director pursuant to section 28-1103.
Notes of Decisions
Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 12× “This is an appeal from a dismissal in the Superior Court of an application for a writ of prohibition, by which appellants sought to prohibit the Superintendent of the Motor Vehicle Division and the Director of the Financial Responsibility section from enforcing the provisions of…”
Campbell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 745 P.2d 160 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 8× “At the time of the father’s death, Arizona’s financial responsibility law, A.R.S. § 28-1142, required minimum uninsured motorist coverage of $15,000.”
Herring v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 697 P.2d 337 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 9× “Empire argued that Porter could not do so because the tortfeasor was actually insured and would not, therefore, qualify as an “uninsured motorist.” We disagreed, and held that Porter could recover the difference between his actual recovery from the tortfeasor’s liability…”
Sampson v. Transp. Indem. Co., 405 P.2d 467 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 18× “(2) Transport Indemnity Company was not required to comply with A.R.S. § 28-1142, subsec. D. (3) The “initial permission” rule does not apply in Arizona.”
Green v. Mid-Am. Preferred Ins. Co., 751 P.2d 581 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 10× “01(A) expressly referred to A.R.S. § 28-1142 for the required amount of uninsured coverage, which was $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.”
Stuart v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 730 P.2d 255 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “This amendment designated the original pargaraph as subsection A and deleted the provision which required the uninsured motorist coverage to be called to the attention of the insured and which gave the insured the right to reject such coverage.”
Ordway v. Pickrell, 543 P.2d 444 (Ariz. 1975).
· cites it 23× “She did not post security or proof of financial responsibility for the future as required by A.R.S. § 28-1142, 1 and she did not fall within any of the exceptions to the requirements of that statute or A.”
Stillman v. Am. Fam. Ins., 785 P.2d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 10× “§ 28-1142(C) 1 required $15,000 minimum coverage “because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident____” The court stated: We believe that [A.R.S. § 28-1142(0] contemplates a minimum limit available for each person actually injured or killed and not for each…”
Farmer v. Killingsworth, 424 P.2d 172 (Ariz. 1967).
· cites it 12× “The appellant contends that the portion of A.R.S. § 28-1142, requiring that an uninsured motorist, involved in an accident resulting in the statutory amount of damage, post a bond, and also provide proof of future financial responsibility in order to prevent the loss of his…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Eden, 666 P.2d 1069 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 7× “Douglas carried liability insurance with limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident, the minimum amounts set forth in A.R.S. § 28-1142, the Arizona Financial Responsibility Law.”
Campbell v. Chatwin, 428 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1967).
· cites it 6× “The Director of the Financial Responsibility Branch of the Arizona Highway Department, upon review of the accident reports, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1142, estimated the damages from the accident to be $900.”
Hastings v. Thurston, 413 P.2d 767 (Ariz. 1966).
· cites it 17× “Perry and Robertson, as defendants in this action, filed an answer and counterclaim, wherein they alleged the insurer is estopped to deny coverage because it failed to notify the Superintendent of the Motor Vehicle Division of this fact in accordance with A.R.S. § 28-1142,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1142(0) — 1 case
Stillman v. Am. Fam. Ins., 785 P.2d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“§ 28-1142(C) 1 required $15,000 minimum coverage “because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident____” The court stated: We believe that [A.R.S. § 28-1142(0] contemplates a minimum limit available for each person actually injured or killed and not for each…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1142(A) — 2 cases
Ordway v. Pickrell, 543 P.2d 444 (Ariz. 1975).
“She did not post security or proof of financial responsibility for the future as required by A.R.S. § 28-1142, 1 and she did not fall within any of the exceptions to the requirements of that statute or A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1142(C) — 4 cases
Campbell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 745 P.2d 160 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“At the time of the father’s death, Arizona’s financial responsibility law, A.R.S. § 28-1142, required minimum uninsured motorist coverage of $15,000.”
Herring v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 697 P.2d 337 (Ariz. 1985).
“Empire argued that Porter could not do so because the tortfeasor was actually insured and would not, therefore, qualify as an “uninsured motorist.” We disagreed, and held that Porter could recover the difference between his actual recovery from the tortfeasor’s liability…”
Green v. Mid-Am. Preferred Ins. Co., 751 P.2d 581 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“01(A) expressly referred to A.R.S. § 28-1142 for the required amount of uninsured coverage, which was $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.”
Stillman v. Am. Fam. Ins., 785 P.2d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“§ 28-1142(C) 1 required $15,000 minimum coverage “because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident____” The court stated: We believe that [A.R.S. § 28-1142(0] contemplates a minimum limit available for each person actually injured or killed and not for each…”
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.