Arizona Crash & Auto Insurance Case Authority Library

Interprets Arizona's UM/UIM anti-stacking statute and the phrase "purchased by one insured." Multiple named insureds who jointly procure policies may constitute the statutory "one insured" for purposes of a compliant anti-stacking limitation.

Reaffirms that an Arizona strict-products-liability plaintiff must establish both a defect and that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous. The risk-benefit analysis examines the product as actually designed rather than simply comparing it with a proposed safer alternative.

Holds that Arizona's UM/UIM Act does not require UIM coverage for an off-road ATV accident occurring off public roads. An insurer may define the policy to exclude that risk.

Holds that a single policy insuring multiple vehicles provides separate UIM coverages for purposes of Arizona's stacking statute. An insurer seeking to prohibit stacking must use the method authorized by A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H).

A foundational modern Arizona negligence decision. Duty is a legal question for the court and is distinct from breach and causation. Foreseeability is not used to determine whether a legal duty exists.

Reinforces Arizona's separation of duty from foreseeability. Arizona generally recognizes duties based on legally recognized relationships or public policy rather than merely because harm was foreseeable.

Confirms the continued viability of Arizona's family-purpose doctrine and rejects the argument that Arizona's comparative-fault statutes abolished the doctrine.

Important Arizona negligence and causation authority arising from an alcohol-related motor-vehicle collision. The decision also abolished the former common-law rule of tavern-owner nonliability. Current alcohol-provider liability must also be analyzed under Arizona's later statutory dram-shop framework.

Arizona's UIM statute did not permit the insurer to reduce UIM coverage by workers' compensation benefits received by the insured.

Holds that an insured injured by another insured under the same automobile policy could recover applicable UIM benefits, subject to credit for liability benefits recovered under that policy.

Holds that UM/UIM coverage is designed to compensate for bodily injury and does not require payment of punitive damages assessed against the tortfeasor unless the insurer specifically contracted to provide that coverage.

A multi-vehicle policy may contain separate UIM coverages for each insured vehicle, and an insurer seeking to restrict stacking must follow § 20-259.01(H).

Arizona's statutory UIM mandate does not require coverage for an off-road ATV accident occurring away from a public road.

Current Arizona Supreme Court authority interpreting the anti-stacking language authorized by § 20-259.01(H), including policies jointly procured by named insureds.

Foundational Arizona authority recognizing that standardized insurance-contract language may, in limited circumstances, yield to objectively reasonable expectations created by the transaction, representations or negotiated agreement.

Synthesizes Arizona's reasonable-expectations doctrine and identifies the limited circumstances in which even unambiguous standardized insurance language may not be enforced as written.

Seminal Arizona Supreme Court authority recognizing the tort of first-party insurance bad faith when an insurer intentionally denies, fails to process or fails to pay a claim without a reasonable basis.

Explains the insurer's implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. An insurer must act reasonably, investigate adequately and may not place its own interests above the protection the insured reasonably expected from the insurance relationship.

Holds that breach of an express policy covenant is not necessarily a prerequisite to a tort claim for insurance bad faith. The case arose from State Farm's handling of an automobile MedPay claim.

Applies Arizona's equal-consideration rule to an insurer's handling of settlement opportunities exposing its insured to an excess judgment. A first-party "fairly debatable" instruction does not define the third-party failure-to-settle standard.

Establishes important Arizona rules permitting an insured defended under a reservation of rights to protect against personal exposure through a qualifying settlement without automatically violating the cooperation clause.

Important authority concerning interpretation of a release and the use of extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning the parties intended to give contractual language.

Holds that a third-party bad-faith failure-to-settle action is a tort claim and addresses accrual when the insured is exposed to an excess judgment, adopting the final-judgment rule.

Foundational Arizona authority applying the state's rule against assignment or subrogation of personal-injury claims to an automobile insurer's attempt to obtain repayment of medical-payment benefits. A.R.S. § 20-259.01(J) later created a limited statutory MedPay lien for qualifying amounts above $5,000.

Interpreted the former version of A.R.S. § 33-931 and held that MedPay was not within the former statutory "health insurance" exclusion from provider liens.

Major Arizona Supreme Court authority addressing the nature and interpretation of Arizona's statutory wrongful-death remedy.

Explains Arizona's one-action structure: one statutory wrongful-death action and judgment may include the separate damages suffered by multiple statutory beneficiaries.

The statutory plaintiff represents all qualifying beneficiaries and owes fiduciary duties to them in conducting and settling the wrongful-death action.

An individual beneficiary is not automatically entitled to a monetary damages award merely because testimony concerning loss is uncontroverted. The jury retains its statutory role in determining what award is fair and just.

Important Arizona authority concerning whether a personal-injury release encompasses an unknown injury and the intent of the parties when the agreement was made.

Interprets Arizona's Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act and addresses the interaction between settlement credits and comparative-fault principles.

The current Arizona Supreme Court framework requires a products plaintiff first to prove that the product was defective and then that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. A risk-benefit analysis focuses on the risks and benefits of the challenged product as actually designed.