Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Franks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green2 sentences1987In Franks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 149 Ariz. 291, 295 , 718 P.2d 193, 197 (App.1985), we said “[a] claim by an injured employee against the workers’ compensation carrier is a first-party claim, ... and the Noble elements of bad faith must be met”. 1987In Franks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 149 Ariz. 291, 295 , 718 P.2d 193, 197 (App.1985), we said “[a] claim by an injured employee against the workers’ compensation carrier is a first-party claim, ... and the Noble elements of bad faith must be met”. | 1 | 2 |
Rawlings v. Apodacagreen2 sentences2000An insurer dealing with a first-party claim must “play fairly with its insured,” give equal consideration in handling the claim, and do so in fairness and honesty. 196 Ariz. at 237 ¶¶ 19-20, 995 P.2d at 279 ¶¶ 19-20 (citing and quoting from Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 154 , 726 P.2d 565, 570 (1986)). . 2000An insurer dealing with a first-party claim must “play fairly with its insured,” give equal consideration in handling the claim, and do so in fairness and honesty. 196 Ariz. at 237 ¶¶ 19-20, 995 P.2d at 279 ¶¶ 19-20 (citing and quoting from Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 154 , 726 P.2d 565, 570 (1986)). . | 1 | 2 |
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp.green1 sentence2022See Mendoza v. McDonald’s Corp., 222 Ariz. 139, ¶ 32 (App. 2009) (“A bad faith claim by an injured employee against his or her employer’s workers’ compensation carrier is considered a first-party claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
Dawson v. Withycombegreen2 sentences2021Dawson v. Withycombe, 216 Ariz. 84, 95, ¶ 25 (App. 2007). ¶54 The superior court denied Truck Insurance's motions for summary judgment on the First-Party claim in both the 2018 and 2019 MSJ Orders. 2021Dawson v. Withycombe, 216 Ariz. 84, 95, ¶ 25 (App. 2007). ¶54 The superior court denied Truck Insurance's motions for summary judgment on the First-Party claim in both the 2018 and 2019 MSJ Orders. | 1 | 1 |
Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2009Id. at 230-31. | 1 | 1 |
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Saviogreen2 sentences1985A claim by an injured employee against the workers’ compensation carrier is a first-party claim, Travelers Insurance Co. v. Savio, 706 P.2d 1258, 1272 (Colo.1985) and the Noble elements of bad faith must be met. 1985A claim by an injured employee against the workers' compensation carrier is a first-party claim, Travelers Insurance Co. v. Savio, 706 P.2d 1258, 1272 (Colo. 1985) and the Noble elements of bad faith must be met. | 1 | 1 |
Wild v. Rariggreen2 sentences1981See, e. g., Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419 , 234 N.W.2d 775, 790 (1975). 1981See, e. g., Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419 , 234 N.W.2d 775, 790 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Lawton v. Great Southwest Fire Insurancegreen2 sentences1981Co., 118 N.H. 607 , 392 A.2d 576, 581 (1978), where the court held on similar reasoning that: “We therefore find no basis for extending the duty recognized in those cases to the first-party claim. 1981Co., 118 N.H. 607 , 392 A.2d 576, 581 (1978), where the court held on similar reasoning that: “We therefore find no basis for extending the duty recognized in those cases to the first-party claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2000An insurer dealing with a first-party claim must “play fairly with its insured,” give equal consideration in handling the claim, and do so in fairness and honesty. 196 Ariz. at 237 ¶¶ 19-20, 995 P.2d at 279 ¶¶ 19-20 (citing and quoting from Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 154 , 726 P.2d 565, 570 (1986)). . 2000An insurer dealing with a first-party claim must “play fairly with its insured,” give equal consideration in handling the claim, and do so in fairness and honesty. 196 Ariz. at 237 ¶¶ 19-20, 995 P.2d at 279 ¶¶ 19-20 (citing and quoting from Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 154 , 726 P.2d 565, 570 (1986)). . | 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.