costs defense in Arizona

10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2012 0 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Centennial Ins. Co. v. US Fire Ins. Co.green calctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012Id. at 565.	1	1
Ina Insurance Co. of North America v. Valley Forge Insurancegreen arizctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008In discussing the cases cited by the carrier, we stated "[i]t is true that the obligation to indemnify may be satisfied either by defending the indemnitee or by paying the indemnitee's costs of defense if the claim is covered by the indemnity agreement.” 150 Ariz. at 254 , 722 P.2d at 981 (emphasis added). 15 . 2008In discussing the cases cited by the carrier, we stated "[i]t is true that the obligation to indemnify may be satisfied either by defending the indemnitee or by paying the indemnitee's costs of defense if the claim is covered by the indemnity agreement.” 150 Ariz. at 254 , 722 P.2d at 981 (emphasis added). 15 .	1	1
DeCamp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.green ariz · 1936 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007For two reasons, I would follow the statute and affirm the trial court's order. ¶ 29 First, judicial rulemaking authority is "not absolute but subject to limitations based on reasonableness and conformity to constitutional and statutory provisions." DeCamp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., 47 Ariz. 517, 521 , 57 P.2d 311, 313 (1936) (procedural rule gives way to contrary legislative statutory authority) ( emphasis added ). 2007For two reasons, I would follow the statute and affirm the trial court's order. ¶ 29 First, judicial rulemaking authority is "not absolute but subject to limitations based on reasonableness and conformity to constitutional and statutory provisions." DeCamp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., 47 Ariz. 517, 521 , 57 P.2d 311, 313 (1936) (procedural rule gives way to contrary legislative statutory authority) ( emphasis added ).	1	1
cluster 703215green ca9 · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Safeway, 64 F.3d at 1286-90 ; Nordstrom, 54 F.3d at 1433-36 .	1	1
State v. Alfarogreen ariz · 1980 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992Stone, 428 U.S. at 485-95 , 96 S.Ct. at 3048-53 ; see also State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260, 269-73 , 689 P.2d 519, 528-532 (1984) (Cameron, J., and Hays, J., separately specially concurring) (proposing that courts, in determining whether the exclusionary rule should be applied, should weigh the costs of applying the rule against the benefits of applying the rule); State v. Alfaro, 127 Ariz. 578, 579-80 , 623 P.2d 8, 9-10 (1980) (under weighing analysis, exclusionary rule held not applicable during probation revocation proceedings); James Duke Cameron & R. 1992Stone, 428 U.S. at 485-95 , 96 S.Ct. at 3048-53 ; see also State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260, 269-73 , 689 P.2d 519, 528-532 (1984) (Cameron, J., and Hays, J., separately specially concurring) (proposing that courts, in determining whether the exclusionary rule should be applied, should weigh the costs of applying the rule against the benefits of applying the rule); State v. Alfaro, 127 Ariz. 578, 579-80 , 623 P.2d 8, 9-10 (1980) (under weighing analysis, exclusionary rule held not applicable during probation revocation proceedings); James Duke Cameron & R.	1	1
State v. Boltgreen ariz · 1984 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992Stone, 428 U.S. at 485-95 , 96 S.Ct. at 3048-53 ; see also State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260, 269-73 , 689 P.2d 519, 528-532 (1984) (Cameron, J., and Hays, J., separately specially concurring) (proposing that courts, in determining whether the exclusionary rule should be applied, should weigh the costs of applying the rule against the benefits of applying the rule); State v. Alfaro, 127 Ariz. 578, 579-80 , 623 P.2d 8, 9-10 (1980) (under weighing analysis, exclusionary rule held not applicable during probation revocation proceedings); James Duke Cameron & R. 1992Stone, 428 U.S. at 485-95 , 96 S.Ct. at 3048-53 ; see also State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260, 269-73 , 689 P.2d 519, 528-532 (1984) (Cameron, J., and Hays, J., separately specially concurring) (proposing that courts, in determining whether the exclusionary rule should be applied, should weigh the costs of applying the rule against the benefits of applying the rule); State v. Alfaro, 127 Ariz. 578, 579-80 , 623 P.2d 8, 9-10 (1980) (under weighing analysis, exclusionary rule held not applicable during probation revocation proceedings); James Duke Cameron & R.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb green ariz · 1993 2 sentences 2003Id. at 503-04 , 862 P.2d at 876-77 . 2003Id. at 503-04 , 862 P.2d at 876-77 .	1	2003–2003
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Chubb & Son, Inc. green ca9 · 1995 1 sentence 1999See Safeway, 64 F.3d at 1286-90 ; Nordstrom, 54 F.3d at 1433-36 .	1	1999–1999
Stone v. Powell green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1992Stone, 428 U.S. at 485-95 , 96 S.Ct. at 3048-53 ; see also State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260, 269-73 , 689 P.2d 519, 528-532 (1984) (Cameron, J., and Hays, J., separately specially concurring) (proposing that courts, in determining whether the exclusionary rule should be applied, should weigh the costs of applying the rule against the benefits of applying the rule); State v. Alfaro, 127 Ariz. 578, 579-80 , 623 P.2d 8, 9-10 (1980) (under weighing analysis, exclusionary rule held not applicable during probation revocation proceedings); James Duke Cameron & R. 1992Stone, 428 U.S. at 485-95 , 96 S.Ct. at 3048-53 ; see also State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260, 269-73 , 689 P.2d 519, 528-532 (1984) (Cameron, J., and Hays, J., separately specially concurring) (proposing that courts, in determining whether the exclusionary rule should be applied, should weigh the costs of applying the rule against the benefits of applying the rule); State v. Alfaro, 127 Ariz. 578, 579-80 , 623 P.2d 8, 9-10 (1980) (under weighing analysis, exclusionary rule held not applicable during probation revocation proceedings); James Duke Cameron & R.	1	1992–1992
Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Junction City Water Control District green or · 1983 2 sentences 1986Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Junction City Water Control District, 295 Or. 553, 556 , 668 P.2d 1206, 1208 , at n. 3 (1983), modified 296 Or. 365 , 677 P.2d 671 (1984) (revoking directed verdict for plaintiff). 255 The duty to defend, however, is not the same as the duty to indemnify. 1986Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Junction City Water Control District, 295 Or. 553, 556 , 668 P.2d 1206, 1208 , at n. 3 (1983), modified 296 Or. 365 , 677 P.2d 671 (1984) (revoking directed verdict for plaintiff). 255 The duty to defend, however, is not the same as the duty to indemnify.	1	1986–1986
Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Junction City Water Control District green or · 1984 2 sentences 1986Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Junction City Water Control District, 295 Or. 553, 556 , 668 P.2d 1206, 1208 , at n. 3 (1983), modified 296 Or. 365 , 677 P.2d 671 (1984) (revoking directed verdict for plaintiff). 255 The duty to defend, however, is not the same as the duty to indemnify. 1986Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Junction City Water Control District, 295 Or. 553, 556 , 668 P.2d 1206, 1208 , at n. 3 (1983), modified 296 Or. 365 , 677 P.2d 671 (1984) (revoking directed verdict for plaintiff). 255 The duty to defend, however, is not the same as the duty to indemnify.	1	1986–1986
Continental Casualty Co. v. Zurich Insurance green cal · 1961 2 sentences 1985Co., 57 Cal.2d 27 , 17 Cal.Rptr. 12 , 366 P.2d 455 (1961): A contrary result would simply provide a premium or offer a possible windfall for the insurer who refuses to defend, and thus, by leaving the insured to his own resources, enjoys a chance that the costs of defense will be provided by some other insurer at no expense to the company which declines to carry out its contractual commitments ... 1985Co., 57 Cal.2d 27 , 17 Cal.Rptr. 12 , 366 P.2d 455 (1961): A contrary result would simply provide a premium or offer a possible windfall for the insurer who refuses to defend, and thus, by leaving the insured to his own resources, enjoys a chance that the costs of defense will be provided by some other insurer at no expense to the company which declines to carry out its contractual commitments ...	1	1985–1985
Thurston National Insurance Co. v. Zurich Insurance Co. green okwd · 1969 1 sentence 1981Thurston National Insurance Co. v. Zurich Insurance Co., 296 F.Supp. 619 (W.D.Okl.1968); Transamerica Insurance Group v. Empire Mutual Ins.	1	1981–1981
Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc. green wash · 1969 2 sentences 1972Waite v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 77 Wash.2d 850 , 467 P.2d 847 (1970) ; Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc., 75 Wash.2d 856 , 454 P.2d 229 (1969), or in some cases even beyond the policy limits, Prince v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 143 N.W.2d 708 (N.D.1966) ; Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 50 Cal.2d 654 , 328 P.2d 198 , 68 A.L.R.2d 883 (1958). 1972Waite v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 77 Wash.2d 850 , 467 P.2d 847 (1970) ; Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc., 75 Wash.2d 856 , 454 P.2d 229 (1969), or in some cases even beyond the policy limits, Prince v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 143 N.W.2d 708 (N.D.1966) ; Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 50 Cal.2d 654 , 328 P.2d 198 , 68 A.L.R.2d 883 (1958).	1	1972–1972
Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance green cal · 1958 2 sentences 1972Waite v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 77 Wash.2d 850 , 467 P.2d 847 (1970) ; Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc., 75 Wash.2d 856 , 454 P.2d 229 (1969), or in some cases even beyond the policy limits, Prince v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 143 N.W.2d 708 (N.D.1966) ; Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 50 Cal.2d 654 , 328 P.2d 198 , 68 A.L.R.2d 883 (1958). 1972Waite v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 77 Wash.2d 850 , 467 P.2d 847 (1970) ; Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc., 75 Wash.2d 856 , 454 P.2d 229 (1969), or in some cases even beyond the policy limits, Prince v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 143 N.W.2d 708 (N.D.1966) ; Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 50 Cal.2d 654 , 328 P.2d 198 , 68 A.L.R.2d 883 (1958).	1	1972–1972
Waite v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. green wash · 1970 2 sentences 1972Waite v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 77 Wash.2d 850 , 467 P.2d 847 (1970) ; Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc., 75 Wash.2d 856 , 454 P.2d 229 (1969), or in some cases even beyond the policy limits, Prince v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 143 N.W.2d 708 (N.D.1966) ; Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 50 Cal.2d 654 , 328 P.2d 198 , 68 A.L.R.2d 883 (1958). 1972Waite v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 77 Wash.2d 850 , 467 P.2d 847 (1970) ; Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc., 75 Wash.2d 856 , 454 P.2d 229 (1969), or in some cases even beyond the policy limits, Prince v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 143 N.W.2d 708 (N.D.1966) ; Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 50 Cal.2d 654 , 328 P.2d 198 , 68 A.L.R.2d 883 (1958).	1	1972–1972
Prince v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. green nd · 1966 1 sentence 1972Waite v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 77 Wash.2d 850 , 467 P.2d 847 (1970) ; Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc., 75 Wash.2d 856 , 454 P.2d 229 (1969), or in some cases even beyond the policy limits, Prince v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 143 N.W.2d 708 (N.D.1966) ; Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 50 Cal.2d 654 , 328 P.2d 198 , 68 A.L.R.2d 883 (1958).	1	1972–1972

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 93 (1965–2025) IL 34 (1974–2020) NY 32 (1855–2022) NJ 23 (1941–2025) PA 17 (1924–2020) OR 16 (1970–2021) TX 16 (1856–2021) LA 13 (1985–2016) OH 11 (1965–2019) AZ 10 (1972–2012) FL 9 (1979–2018) WI 7 (1989–2018) NH 6 (1852–2023) WA 6 (1997–2019) CO 5 (1988–2026) IA 5 (1935–2024) MD 5 (1981–2023) MI 5 (1966–2009) MA 4 (1983–2017) MN 3 (1979–2009) CT 3 (1990–2003) AK 3 (1976–2014) VT 3 (1880–2019) VA 3 (1995–2016) MT 3 (1991–2009) ND 3 (1981–1982) OK 2 (1998–1998) GA 2 (1986–2016) NM 2 (1993–2009) ID 2 (1984–1992) NC 2 (1992–2001) AL 2 (2007–2011) DE 2 (1982–2004) MO 2 (2010–2019) RI 2 (1995–2010) WY 2 (2000–2002) IN 2 (1980–1991) KS 2 (1979–2003) UT 2 (2008–2009) HI 2 (2009–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check