12 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Keggi v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurancegreen2 sentences2021Finally, “the insured bears the burden to establish coverage under an insuring clause, and the insurer bears the burden to establish the applicability of any exclusion.” Keggi, 199 Ariz. at 46, ¶ 13 . 2018Co. , 199 Ariz. 43 , 46, ¶ 13, 13 P.3d 785 , 788 (App. 2000) ("Generally, the insured bears the burden to establish coverage under an insuring clause"). ¶ 12 Hanfelder did not attempt to prove his damages, arguing he did not have to do so because he only sought declaratory relief. | 5 | 5 |
BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLCgreen1 sentence2019P. 56(a), and BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, L.L.C., 236 Ariz. 363, 365, ¶ 7 (2015)). ¶7 The Policy’s insuring clause states: We will pay damages for bodily injury and property damage to others for which the law holds an insured responsible because of an accident which results from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered automobile, a non-owned automobile or trailer while being used with a covered automobile or non-owned automobile. | 1 | 1 |
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Advance Roofing & Supply Co., 163 Ariz. at 483 , 788 P.2d at 1234 ; Ohio Cas., 189 Ariz. at 186 , 939 P.2d at 1339 (courts try to find actual meaning before finding ambiguity). ¶ 22 Therefore, because the insuring clause clearly does not provide coverage for Salerno’s injuries, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. 2000See, e.g., Advance Roofing & Supply Co., 163 Ariz. at 483 , 788 P.2d at 1234 ; Ohio Cas., 189 Ariz. at 186 , 939 P.2d at 1339 (courts try to find actual meaning before finding ambiguity). ¶ 22 Therefore, because the insuring clause clearly does not provide coverage for Salerno’s injuries, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. | 1 | 1 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Corp. v. Advance Roofing & Supply Co.green2 sentences2000See, e.g., Advance Roofing & Supply Co., 163 Ariz. at 483 , 788 P.2d at 1234 ; Ohio Cas., 189 Ariz. at 186 , 939 P.2d at 1339 (courts try to find actual meaning before finding ambiguity). ¶ 22 Therefore, because the insuring clause clearly does not provide coverage for Salerno’s injuries, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. 2000See, e.g., Advance Roofing & Supply Co., 163 Ariz. at 483 , 788 P.2d at 1234 ; Ohio Cas., 189 Ariz. at 186 , 939 P.2d at 1339 (courts try to find actual meaning before finding ambiguity). ¶ 22 Therefore, because the insuring clause clearly does not provide coverage for Salerno’s injuries, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Price v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company
green
2 sentences1989Surely there is nothing in the insuring clause that would forewarn an insured that such was to be the intent of the parties.’ Price, 108 Ariz. at 487-88 , 502 P.2d at 524 -25 (quoting 7 Appleman’s Insurance Law and Practice, § 4312). 1989Surely there is nothing in the insuring clause that would forewarn an insured that such was to be the intent of the parties.’ Price, 108 Ariz. at 487-88 , 502 P.2d at 524 -25 (quoting 7 Appleman’s Insurance Law and Practice, § 4312). | 3 | 1984–1989 |
STANFORD RANCH, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
green
1 sentence2010From that it argues that because Desert Mountain could be liable to the homeowners only in contract, its claim for eover-age did not fall within the insuring clause of the policies. ¶ 30 Liberty Mutual relies in large part on Stanford Ranch, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 89 F.3d 618 (9th Cir.1996), for the proposition that the insuring clause of a CGL policy is not triggered by a claim arising out of contract. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Lennar Corp. v. Auto-Owners Insurance
green
1 sentence2010As we said in Lennar Corp., “[T]he insurer would have the duty to defend a suit alleging facts that, if true, would give rise to coverage, even though there would ultimately be no obligation to indemnify if the facts giving rise to coverage were not established.” Id. at 261, ¶ 11, 151 P.3d at 544 . ¶ 24 As to whether a duty to defend may apply absent litigation, the standard CGL policy expressly refers to a lawsuit: “We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking ... damages [covered by the policy].” 4 By contrast, the policy’s insuring clause (“We will pay th | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn
green
2 sentences2002Id. at 194-95 , 805 P.2d at 1015-16 . ¶ 7 The insuring clause of the American Family homeowners policy states in pertinent part: We cover risks of accidéntal direct physical loss to property 2 ... unless the loss is excluded in this policy. 2002Id. at 194-95 , 805 P.2d at 1015-16 . ¶ 7 The insuring clause of the American Family homeowners policy states in pertinent part: We cover risks of accidéntal direct physical loss to property 2 ... unless the loss is excluded in this policy. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Kmart Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
green
1 sentence2000The vendor’s endorsement adds the School as an insured, but only for bodily injury “arising out of your [Scholastic’s] products which are ... sold in the regular course of the vendor’s [the School’s] business.” It does not purport to provide general commercial liability insurance for all aspects of the books’ sale nor provide premises liability coverage for all locations at which the books are sold. ¶ 21 Finally, Salerno cites K-Mart Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 88 F.Supp.2d 767 (E.D.Mich.2000), to argue that the “demonstration exclusion” to the vendor’s endorsement provides coverage | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.