Cluster 1179584

See also Clark Equip., 189 Ariz. at 445 , 943 P.2d at 805 (“[T]he Fund is not liable for the bad faith denial of a claim”). ¶ 12 Plaintiff challenges that conclusion, noting that, unlike the Model Act upon which Arizona’s statutes were based, 8 § 20-675(A) “does not purport to grant immunity to the Fund.” The Model Act’s immunity provision (§ 17) expressly includes “the association.” Although the parties do not mention it, Arizona’s original immunity statute, which the legis…

Fund, 189 Ariz. 433 , 440 (App. 1997) (“The purpose of disclosure is . . . to give each party adequate notice of what arguments will be made and what evidence will be presented[.]”). ¶69 Had APS’s application in the Current Rate Case proposed a solar-specific increase, we would have little trouble concluding that APS’s application and the Public Notice, read together, provided notice sufficient to satisfy due process.

Fund, 4 943 P.2d 793, 801 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).

Fund, 15 943 P.2d 793, 800 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997) (interpreting Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 16 26.1(a)’s disclosure requirement). “[T]he disclosure statement is the primary vehicle by 17 which the parties are informed of their opponent’s case,” and thus, “it should fairly expose 18 the facts and issues to be litigated.” Bryan v. Riddel, 875 P.2d 131, 136 (Ariz. 1994). 19 Therefore, General Order No. 17-08 requires parties to “fairly expose the facts and 20 issues to be li…

An insured’s breach of a cooperation provision relieves an insurer of liability “if the insurer has been substantially prejudiced thereby----” Id. at 802 (citations omitted) (emphasis in the original).

Fund, 189 Ariz. 433, 440 , 943 P.2d 793, 800 (App.1997) (“The purpose of disclosure is ... to give each party adequate notice of ... what evidence will be presented at trial.”).

Fund, 189 Ariz. 433, 442 , 943 P.2d 793, 802 (App.1997). 9 .

Fund, 189 Ariz. 433 , 943 P.2d 793, 802 (1997).

Id. at 802, n. 11.

Guaranty Fund, 189 Ariz. 433, 440 , 943 P.2d 793, 800 (App.1997). ¶ 29 The majority first claims that Rule 408 is inapplicable because a notice of claim, like a complaint, merely initiates the claim process and does not constitute an attempt to compromise a claim that is "disputed." The majority reasons that in the notice of claim situation, there is no dispute yet because the government may agree that it is liable in response to the notice of claim.

Fund, 189 Ariz. 433, 440 , 943 P.2d 793, 800 (App.1997) ("The purpose of disclosure is ... to give each party adequate notice of what arguments will be made and what evidence will be presented at trial.").

Id. at 800.

Fund, 189 Ariz. 433, 439 , 943 P.2d 793, 799 (App.1997)).

Fund, 189 Ariz. 433, 440 , 943 P.2d 793, 800 (App.1997) (a disclosure statement is not a judicial admission; a party’s disclosure statement can be amended).

Fund, 189 Ariz. 433, 445 , 943 P.2d 793, 805 (App.1997) (“Even though the Fund was created by statute ... the essential nature of this action remains one sounding in contract____ [T]he Fund, like any other entity involved in litigation over the terms of a contract, must expect that it may be liable for the prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees.”); Mancillas v. Arizona Property & Cas.