8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2014 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. United States Fidelity And Guaranty Companygreen2 sentences1986We “believe such a choice is supported by the better reasoning and accords with the growing weight of authority.” State Farm v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 490 F.2d at 411 (cita *150 tions omitted). 1985See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 490 F.2d 407, 410 (4th Cir.1974); see generally, Annot., 46 A.L.R.2d 1159 (1954). | 2 | 2 |
Bearden v. Georgiagreen1 sentence2014See 461 U.S. at 672-73 . 3 C. | 1 | 1 |
Rashid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen1 sentence2006The court in Rashid qualified its holding, stating, “Because [State Farm’s escape provision] removes that which the statute requires to be in the policy, we hold the escape clause cannot be applied when the insured is not fully indemnified.” Id. at 275, 787 P.2d at 1071 (emphasis added). ¶20 Schultz permits an insurer to limit coverage to avoid double recovery, interpreting the statute to permit an exclusion or offset, provided an injured party is fully compensated for his or her actual damages. | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fireman's Fund Insurancegreen1 sentence1993Id. at 179, 717 P.2d at 858. | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Parolesgreen1 sentence1993Id. at 182, 717 P.2d at 861. | 1 | 1 |
Aid Insurance Co. v. United Fire & Casualty Co.green1 sentence1991Co., 445 N.W.2d 767, 770 (Iowa 1989) (a clause excluding coverage unless other insurance does not exist is just as much an escape clause as one that provides coverage unless other insurance does exist). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 534218green1 sentence1991See Sifers v. General Marine Catering Co., 892 F.2d 386 , 393 (court accurately characterized a clause permitting the denial of coverage as an escape clause), modified on other grounds, 897 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir.1990); Aid Ins. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 537738green1 sentence1991See Sifers v. General Marine Catering Co., 892 F.2d 386 , 393 (court accurately characterized a clause permitting the denial of coverage as an escape clause), modified on other grounds, 897 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir.1990); Aid Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Herdergreen2 sentences1990APPLEMAN, INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE § 5102.25, at 471-72 (1981); see also Herder, 156 Ariz. at 205 , 751 P.2d at 521 ; Annotation, Combining Or “Stacking” Uninsured Motorist Coverages Provided In Policies Issued By Different Insurers To Different Insureds, 28 A.L.R.4th 362 (1984). 1990APPLEMAN, INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE § 5102.25, at 471-72 (1981); see also Herder, 156 Ariz. at 205 , 751 P.2d at 521 ; Annotation, Combining Or “Stacking” Uninsured Motorist Coverages Provided In Policies Issued By Different Insurers To Different Insureds, 28 A.L.R.4th 362 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Continental Cas. Co. v. Weekesgreen1 sentence1985See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 490 F.2d 407, 410 (4th Cir.1974); see generally, Annot., 46 A.L.R.2d 1159 (1954). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schultz v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies
green
2 sentences2006The applicable “test,” the court in Schultz stated, “is whether applying the endorsement denies *547 full recovery for the insured’s loss.” 167 Ariz. at 153 , 805 P.2d at 386 . 2006The applicable “test,” the court in Schultz stated, “is whether applying the endorsement denies *547 full recovery for the insured’s loss.” 167 Ariz. at 153 , 805 P.2d at 386 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Brown v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bogart
green
2 sentences1991An escape clause, in contrast, provides that “a policy which would otherwise cover the loss will afford no coverage at all in the event that there is other insurance available.” Bogart, 149 Ariz. at 147 , 717 P.2d at 451 ; see also Appleman, § 4910, at 457. 1991An escape clause, in contrast, provides that “a policy which would otherwise cover the loss will afford no coverage at all in the event that there is other insurance available.” Bogart, 149 Ariz. at 147 , 717 P.2d at 451 ; see also Appleman, § 4910, at 457. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bogart
green
2 sentences1986State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Bogart, 149 Ariz. 154 , 717 P.2d 458 (1985). 1986State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Bogart, 149 Ariz. 154 , 717 P.2d 458 (1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences1986Id., 13 Ariz.App. at 35 , 474 P.2d at 42 . 1986Id., 13 Ariz.App. at 35 , 474 P.2d at 42 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Lincombe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1971In support of this contention he cites Lincombe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 166 So.2d 920 (La. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.