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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hampton v. Allstate Insurancegreen1 sentence2023Hampton did not interpret the UMA when it held that policy language may preclude intra-policy stacking. 126 Ariz. at 405 (considering and rejecting an insured’s public policy arguments against enforcing a policy’s limitation of liability clause). | 1 | 1 |
Valve Corp. v. Sierra Entertainment Inc.green1 sentence2007Evergreen, however, does not argue this rule should not be adopted, only that AFX failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment on the question of bad faith. ¶ 21 Furthermore, we find several courts have approved of this or a similar rule and none has rejected it. 8 See, e.g., Valve Corp. v. Sierra Entertainment Inc., 431 F.Supp.2d 1091, 1101 (W.D.Wash.2004) (“A limitation of liability clause may not apply where the party relying on the clause acted in ‘bad faith.’ ”); Colonial Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Potlatch Corp. v. Beloit Corp.green1 sentence2007Wash. 2004) (“A limitation of liability clause may not apply where the 8 In Potlatch Corp. v. Beloit Corp., 979 P.2d 114, 117-18 (Idaho 1999), the Idaho Supreme Court distinguished Long Island Lighting Co., stating it “provide[d] no support for [the plaintiff’s] argument seeking to allege bad faith in soliciting the contract as a basis for recovery of contract damages.” But cf. Amer. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Valhal Corp. v. Sullivan Associates, Inc., Architects, Planners, Engineers
green
1 sentence2008According to the Valhal court, an exculpatory clause immunizes a person from his or her own negligence, an indemnity clause holds that person harmless from such liability by requiring another to bear the damages awarded, and a limitation-of-liability clause places a cap on damages awarded against the negligent actor. 44 F.3d at 202 . 8 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hazel B. McTighe v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Company
green
1 sentence1977It is only where it turns out that one side or the other is to be penalized by the enforcement of the terms of a con *493 tract so unconscionable that no decent, fairminded person would view the ensuing result without being possessed of a profound sense of injustice, that equity will deny the use of its good offices in the enforcement of such unconscionability.” The leading case on the question of the validity of such a limitation of liability clause in a contract for telephone directory advertising is McTighe v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Company, 216 F.2d 26 (2nd Cir. 1954). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.