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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS.green1 sentence2024Co., 19 Ariz. App. 594, 600 (1973) (stating that judicial estoppel “is not merely that a party has taken inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings”). ¶50 In the 2019 Lawsuit, State Farm sought dismissal of Frank’s complaint, arguing Frank had to arbitrate her UIM claim. | 1 | 1 |
Badia v. City of Casa Grandegreen2 sentences2023He cited no record evidence to support either of these "beliefs." See Badia v. City of Casa Grande, 195 Ariz. 349, 357, ¶ 29 (App. 1999) ("Sheer speculation is insufficient to . . . defeat summary judgment."). ¶24 Berry also opined that, "[i]n [his] experience, insurers purposefully locate matters . . . to be particularly harmful to the insurer or helpful to its client/insured[] outside of the claim file because their contents hardly ever support nonpayment of an insurance claim." He identified no such "matters" in this case and cited no evidence to suggest State Farm "purposefully" removed an 2023He cited no record evidence to support either of these "beliefs." See Badia v. City of Casa Grande, 195 Ariz. 349, 357, ¶ 29 (App. 1999) ("Sheer speculation is insufficient to . . . defeat summary judgment."). ¶24 Berry also opined that, "[i]n [his] experience, insurers purposefully locate matters . . . to be particularly harmful to the insurer or helpful to its client/insured[] outside of the claim file because their contents hardly ever support nonpayment of an insurance claim." He identified no such "matters" in this case and cited no evidence to suggest State Farm "purposefully" removed an | 1 | 1 |
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences2012Co., 217 Ariz. 358 , 360 ¶ 9, 174 P.3d 270, 272 (2008). ¶ 2 In the underlying federal court action, the insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, sought a declaratory judgment that it had validly denied an insured’s UIM claim. 2012Co., 217 Ariz. 358 , 360 ¶ 9, 174 P.3d 270, 272 (2008). ¶ 2 In the underlying federal court action, the insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, sought a declaratory judgment that it had validly denied an insured’s UIM claim. | 1 | 1 |
Duran v. Hartford Insurancegreen2 sentences1999Plaintiff is the victim of a negligent driver, she opted to purchase UIM coverage, and she is therefore entitled to that protection. ¶ 16 Travelers also relies on Duran v. Hartford Insurance Co., 160 Ariz. 223, 223 , 772 P.2d 577, 577 (1989) (“Duran”), which we distinguish because that claimant was a guest passenger making a UIM claim on someone else’s policy. 1999Plaintiff is the victim of a negligent driver, she opted to purchase UIM coverage, and she is therefore entitled to that protection. ¶ 16 Travelers also relies on Duran v. Hartford Insurance Co., 160 Ariz. 223, 223 , 772 P.2d 577, 577 (1989) (“Duran”), which we distinguish because that claimant was a guest passenger making a UIM claim on someone else’s policy. | 1 | 1 |
Tissell v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.green2 sentences1999See id. 1999See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. Tank
green
2 sentences1999We hold that Plaintiffs UIM claim cannot be denied for that reason, and we limit Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tank, 146 Ariz. 33 , 703 P.2d 580 (App.1985), to cases in which the UIM claimant is making a claim on someone else’s policy. 1999We hold that Plaintiffs UIM claim cannot be denied for that reason, and we limit Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tank, 146 Ariz. 33 , 703 P.2d 580 (App.1985), to cases in which the UIM claimant is making a claim on someone else’s policy. | 2 | 1999–2000 |
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar.
green
1 sentence1997Remand to determine UIM claim The court of appeals ordered that the case be remanded to determine “how payment, if any, under the underinsurance clause of the Old Hickory policy is to be made.” A.H., 189 Ariz. at 384 n. 4, 943 P.2d at 744 n. 4. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.