The Insurer issued an Auto Policy and an Umbrella Policy. The Auto Policy provided $100,000 of UIM coverage and the Umbrella Policy provided $2,000,000 of UIM coverage. Just like ARS § 12-555(C)(2),the Auto Policy barred UIM...more
Is an insured legally entitled to recover the incurred amount of medical expenses or a reasonable amount of medical expenses?
This issue often arises in first-party bad faith cases arising from uninsured motorist (“UM”) and...more
Plaintiffs often allege an insurer breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by conducting an unreasonable and/or an inadequate investigation. But, Arizona courts have held for over 30 years that an insurer’s...more
The Holding -
In Chattanooga Prof’l Baseball LLC, v. Nat’l Cas. Co., 2020 WL 6699480 (D. Ariz. Nov. 13, 2020) (Order), the Arizona District Court held that a “Virus Exclusion” clearly precluded insurance coverage for losses...more
12/7/2020
/ Baseball ,
Breach of Contract ,
Business Losses ,
Casualty Insurance ,
Commercial Insurance Policies ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Denial of Insurance Coverage ,
Estoppel ,
Infectious Diseases ,
Insurance Claims ,
Insurance Industry ,
Insurance Litigation ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Policy Exclusions ,
Property Insurance
Insurance attorney Nate Meyer discusses the importance of an insurer selecting the right appraiser....more
When the insured and insurer disagree on the amount of a particular loss, an appraiser can help settle the matter. Partner and insurance attorney Nate Meyer explains an appraiser's role in this video. ...more
The Holding -
In Hanfelder v. Geico Indem. Co., WL 2018 WL 2315949 (May 22, 2018), the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment granted to an Insurer because the Policy’s “imprecise” anti-stacking language did...more
6/11/2018
/ Affiliates ,
Anti-Stacking Provisions ,
Appeals ,
Commercial Insurance Policies ,
Contract Drafting ,
Declaratory Rulings ,
Insurance Industry ,
Insurance Litigation ,
Policy Terms ,
Reversal ,
Summary Judgment ,
Uninsured and Under-Insured Motorists
The Holding -
In Knightbrook Insurance Company v. Payless Car Rental System Incorporated, 2018 WL 769295 (Ariz. February 8, 2018), an insurance bad faith and equitable indemnification case arising from an auto claim, the...more
3/14/2018
/ Appeals ,
AZ Supreme Court ,
Bad Faith ,
Duty to Indemnify ,
Duty to Pay ,
Equitable Indemnity ,
Indemnification ,
Insurance Industry ,
Insurance Litigation ,
Restitution ,
Third-Party Liability
Although the Arizona Court of Appeals resolved this issue 20 years ago, I frequently see insureds' counsel argue that an insurer must pay the "undisputed amount" of a UM or UIM claim—and I just saw this argument last week—so...more
In Chukly v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 WL 3262541 (D.Ariz. Aug. 1, 2017) (Order), a breach of contract and insurance bad faith case arising from a homeowners claim after a microburst and “massive rain,” the Arizona...more
11/10/2017
/ Aiding and Abetting ,
Bad Faith ,
Breach of Contract ,
Claims Adjusters ,
Fraudulent Joinder ,
Homeowner's Insurance ,
Insurance Claims ,
Insurance Industry ,
Insurance Litigation ,
Motion to Remand ,
Policy Terms ,
Property Damage
In State Farm v. Lee, 199 Ariz. 52, 13 P.3d 1169 (2000) (En Banc), the Arizona Supreme Court first held that an Insurer can impliedly waive the attorney-client privilege (the “Privilege”) in a bad faith case, despite not...more
Because Arizona cases touching on this issue are copious, confusing, and complex, we note the following guidelines—though sometimes conflicting—have emerged from Lee and its progeny and will assist an Insurer’s analysis of...more
Although Arizona law regarding the implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege (the “Privilege”) is far from certain, an Insurer may avoid a waiver by following these tips...more
In Quihuis v. State Farm, --- Ariz. ---, 334 P.3d 719 (Ariz. Oct. 1, 2014), the Arizona Supreme Court recently held that a stipulated fact in a Damron Agreement that is both an element of liability and essential to...more
In Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance Company, 232 Ariz. 327, 305 P.3d 392 (June 11, 2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals held a UM/UIM selection/rejection form is not a valid “offer” under Arizona’s Uninsured Motorist Act, which...more
In Mendota Insurance Company v. Gallegos, 232 Ariz. 126, 302 P.3d 651, 657 (2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals recently held a named insured's younger brother was a resident of his brother's household and therefore entitled...more