Arizona Court of Appeals Confirms “Subcontractor Exception” to “Your Work” Exclusion Does Not Apply to Additional Insured General Contractor
In Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company, LLC, --- P.3d ----, 2016 WL 7508079, *1 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2016), the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an Additional Insured General Contractor and found the “subcontractor exception” to the “your work” exclusion did not apply to the Additional Insured. … Read More
Arizona Court of Appeals Reverses $1 Million Award of Punitive Damages in Insurance Bad Faith Case for Alleged “Institutional Bad Faith”
In Sobieski v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 2016 WL 5436588 (Ariz.App. Sept. 29, 2016), despite upholding a bad faith judgment for an insurer conducting an unreasonable investigation and denying a claim, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed a $1 million award of punitive damages. In so holding, the Court of Appeals continued Arizona’s trend of reducing or reversing punitive … Read More
Arizona Court of Appeals Holds Injury That Occurred Shortly After Plaintiff Exited a Vehicle Did Not Arise Out of the Use of an Auto
United Financial Casualty Co. v. Associated Indem. Corp., 2016 WL 6518491 (Ariz. App. November 3, 2016)
The Arizona Court of Appeals (Memorandum Decision), held that a plaintiff’s injury, which occurred approximately one minute after she exited an insured automobile and after she walked approximately ten feet:
did not fall within commercial automobile liability coverage for “bodily … Read More
Arizona District Court Holds Insurer That Never Conceded Coverage, but Offered Policy Limits, is Not Liable as a Matter of Law for Excess Judgment
GEICO Indem. Co. v. Smith, 2016 WL 5791532 (D. Ariz. Oct. 4, 2016)
The Arizona District Court (Arizona and Pacific Reporter citations not yet available), held that an Insurer who offers its policy limits as a business consideration, but never concedes coverage, is not liable as a matter of law for an excess judgment against its Insured.
In Smith, an Insurer twice denied coverage for a claim, … Read More
Arizona Court of Appeals Confirms No "Good Faith" Requirement for Offers of Judgment
Stafford v. Burns, ---P.3d---,2017 WL 164310 (Ariz.App. January 17, 2017)
This is a medical malpractice and wrongful death case arising from emergency medical care rendered after a methadone overdose, the Arizona Court of Appeals “decline [d] to impose a requirement that Offers of Judgment be deemed reasonable before sanctions are imposed under Rule 68(g).”
In Arizona, a Rule 68 Offer of … Read More
What Happens If a Litigant Beats Multiple Offers of Judgment in Arizona?
In Orosco v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District, (2017 WL 469690) (Ariz. App. February 2, 2017), a medical malpractice case in which the jury’s $4.25 million verdict exceeded two offers of judgment made by plaintiffs, the Arizona Court of Appeals held “a subsequent offer of judgment does not extinguish the effect of an offeree’s failure to accept a prior offer when the judgment is … Read More
Tips to Avoid the Implied Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege in Arizona Insurance Bad Faith Cases
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:
An Insurer should consider whether to defend a bad faith claim solely on objective reasonableness.
An Insurer should avoid, if possible, asserting its actions were subjectively reasonable based on its adjuster& … Read More
Arizona Court of Appeals Notes "Good Reasons to Suspect Arson" and Disregards Insured's Expert Affidavit in Bad Faith Case
Epperson v. AAA Fire & CAs. Ins Co., WL 406144 (Ariz.App January 31, 2017)
Memorandum Decision, an insurance bad faith case arising from a fire claim, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to an Insurer, despite the Insurer paying the claim over 15 months after the fire occurred.
The Insured’s argued the trial court erroneously ruled there was no bad … Read More
Illusion of Insurance Coverage
Many contracts or leases require one party to get insurance protection for the other party or landlord. Typically, they simply pass along the request for the insurance coverage to their insurance agent or broker and assume that their insurance will be updated to reflect the addition. To “prove” compliance with the contract requiring additional insurance coverage, the parties will often rely upon a & … Read More
Arizona Confirms Two "Claims" Against Two Drivers Arising From One Accident Does Not Allow Insured to Stack UIM Coverage
Yeager v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2017 WL 491121 (Ariz. App. February 7, 2017)
Memorandum Decision, a declaratory judgment action, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected an Insured’s argument that she could stack UIM coverage’s in separate policies issued by the same Insurer. The Insured was involved in a single accident, but argued she made “two” claims—one UIM claim … Read More