Western States Law Library  ›  Arizona  ›  Guide 02

Arizona Auto Insurance & Crash Law · Citizen Guide 02

Required Auto Insurance & Minimum Liability Limits

Arizona requires financial responsibility for vehicles operated on its highways. For most private motorists that means liability insurance with at least 25/50/15 limits. But those minimum limits are only the statutory floor—not a determination of who is insured or how much insurance may actually be available after a crash.

Current-law review: Sept. 13, 2026 A.R.S. §28-4009 25 / 50 / 15 Permissive-user protection Written named-driver exclusion

Arizona requires financial responsibility—not merely possession of an insurance card

A.R.S. §28-4135 requires a motor vehicle operated on an Arizona highway to be covered by an authorized form of financial responsibility.

Most private vehicles

Liability insurance policy

The ordinary method is an automobile or motor vehicle liability policy with limits not less than those required by §28-4009.

Alternative

Authorized alternate coverage

Arizona law recognizes specified alternative methods of establishing financial responsibility when the statutory requirements are met.

Qualified owner

Self-insurance

A qualifying person or entity can obtain a certificate of self-insurance under §28-4007 rather than relying exclusively on an ordinary personal auto policy.

Special operations

Transportation financial responsibility

Commercial transportation, TNC and other specialized operations can be governed by additional financial-responsibility statutes.

Practical rule: when a driver says “I was insured,” the next question is not whether an insurance card existed. The question is what financial responsibility actually applied to the vehicle and driver on the exact date and time of the crash.

The ordinary Arizona liability minimum is 25 / 50 / 15

For an ordinary owner's motor vehicle liability policy issued or renewed beginning July 1, 2020, §28-4009 establishes the following compulsory liability limits, subject to the statute's specific provisions and self-insurance exception.

$25,000 Bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident.
$50,000 Bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident, subject to the per-person limit.
$15,000 Injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident.
These numbers measure minimum required insurance—not damages. A person seriously injured in an Arizona crash may have damages far exceeding $25,000. The legal value of the injury and the amount of collectible insurance are different questions.

The per-person and per-accident limits answer different questions

The $25,000 limit applies to bodily injury or death of one person. The $50,000 limit is the aggregate bodily-injury limit for two or more people injured or killed in the same accident, subject to the individual $25,000 limit.

Example: a minimum-limits policy does not provide $50,000 to each of two injured people. The most payable for one person's bodily injury is ordinarily $25,000, while the total available for all bodily-injury claims from the accident is ordinarily $50,000.

An Arizona owner's policy follows the covered vehicle and its permitted use

Section 28-4009(A) defines the required structure of an owner's motor vehicle liability policy.

Identify the vehicles

The policy must designate the vehicles for which coverage is granted by explicit description or appropriate reference.

Insure the named insured

The statute requires liability protection for the person named as insured under the owner's policy.

Protect permissive users

The statutory omnibus provision also protects a person using the covered vehicle with the named insured's express or implied permission.

Vehicle identification matters. The statutory permissive-user rule applies to vehicles for which the owner's policy grants coverage. It does not automatically turn every owner's policy into liability insurance for every automobile the insured might ever drive.

Permission can determine whether another driver is insured

Section 28-4009(A)(2) protects a person using the covered motor vehicle with the named insured's express or implied permission.

Express permission

The owner or named insured directly authorizes the person to use the vehicle.

Examples can include handing over the keys, verbally authorizing use or otherwise expressly allowing the particular driver to operate the automobile.

OR

Implied permission

Permission can also arise from conduct, relationship, established practice or surrounding circumstances rather than an express statement.

Whether implied permission exists is therefore often a factual investigation rather than a question answered by the policy card.

Evidence of permission may include

  • who possessed the keys
  • prior vehicle use
  • household relationship
  • texts or messages
  • owner statements
  • driver statements
  • purpose of the trip
  • frequency of prior borrowing
  • restrictions placed on use
  • employment or agency relationship
  • police-report statements
  • testimony of household members or witnesses
Permission and liability are different questions. A permissive user may qualify as an insured without the vehicle owner personally being negligent. Conversely, an owner may face a separate liability theory depending on the facts even when insurance coverage is disputed.

Arizona also recognizes an operator's liability policy

Section 28-4009(B) distinguishes an operator's motor vehicle liability policy from an owner's policy.

Owner's Policy

Coverage organized around specified vehicles

The policy identifies covered vehicles and protects the named insured and qualifying permissive users under the statutory framework.

Operator's Policy

Coverage organized around the named person

The policy insures the named person against liability arising from use of a vehicle the person does not own, subject to statutory terms and limits.

Do not assume the driver's own insurance is irrelevant merely because the driver did not own the vehicle. Determine whether a driver's policy contains nonowned-auto liability coverage or operates as an operator's policy, and then analyze priority with the vehicle owner's insurance.

Arizona permits a specifically named driver to be excluded—but the statute requires a written agreement

Section 28-4009(A)(3) allows the named insured and insurer to agree in writing that a particular identified person is excluded as an insured while operating a motor vehicle.

Identify the claimed exclusion. Do not accept “the driver was excluded” as a conclusion without the actual exclusion document.
Confirm the excluded person's identity. The statute concerns a person or persons designated by name.
Obtain the written agreement. Arizona's statute expressly requires an agreement in writing between the named insured and the insurer.
Determine whether the exclusion remained operative. The written agreement generally continues through renewals until the insurer agrees in writing to restore coverage.
Read the entire policy and statutory framework. Determine which coverage the exclusion affects and whether another policy or coverage still applies.
Transportation Insurance Co. v. Bruining is an important Arizona Supreme Court authority on compliance with the statutory written-agreement requirement for an excluded driver.

The compulsory layer and the excess contractual layer are not always identical

Section 28-4009 does more than state minimum limits. It also defines what Arizona requires a motor vehicle liability policy to protect and what liability the statute does not require the policy to insure.

Employee / workers' compensation liability

The compulsory-policy statute does not require certain workers' compensation liability or specified employee bodily-injury liability to be insured under the motor vehicle liability policy.

Property in the insured's control

Section 28-4009 identifies specified property owned by, rented to, in charge of or transported by the insured as outside the compulsory liability requirement.

Intentional injury

The statute does not require liability coverage for damage or bodily injury intentionally caused by or at the direction of the insured.

TNC / rideshare use

An ordinary private-passenger policy is not required to insure designated TNC activity unless the policy or an endorsement expressly provides that coverage. Arizona has a separate TNC insurance statute.

The statute expressly distinguishes additional coverage

Under §28-4009(D), an Arizona policy may provide insurance above or in addition to the statutory minimum. The compulsory provisions of the financial-responsibility chapter apply to the portion of coverage required by the statute; excess or additional coverage can remain governed by the policy contract and other Arizona insurance law.

This is why an exclusion can require two analyses. First ask whether Arizona public policy permits the exclusion to eliminate the compulsory statutory protection. Then separately determine whether the exclusion can operate against liability limits purchased above the statutory minimum.

Household exclusions illustrate the distinction

Arizona Supreme Court decisions including Arceneaux recognized that a household exclusion could not eliminate the liability protection required by the financial-responsibility law, while allowing contractual limitations above the compulsory minimum in appropriate circumstances.

Averett adds an important second inquiry: even where an exclusion can legally operate against coverage above the compulsory floor, the surrounding insurance transaction may still require analysis under Arizona's reasonable-expectations doctrine.

Once a covered crash occurs, the compulsory liability cannot simply disappear afterward

Section 28-4009(C)(5) includes important protections that operate after the injury or property damage has occurred.

Liability becomes absolute

The insurer's liability with respect to insurance required by the chapter becomes absolute when covered injury or damage occurs.

No retroactive cancellation

An insurer and insured cannot cancel or annul the compulsory liability after the crash in the manner prohibited by the statute.

Judgment need not be paid first

Satisfaction of a judgment by the insured is not a prerequisite to the insurer's obligation to make a covered payment.

Public protection is built into the policy. Arizona's compulsory insurance scheme is designed not merely as a private contract between insurer and insured, but also to protect members of the public injured through motor-vehicle use.

Arizona requires evidence of financial responsibility and verifies it after crashes

A person operating a motor vehicle on an Arizona highway generally must have current evidence of financial responsibility applicable to the vehicle.

Paper or electronic evidence

Section 28-4135 permits evidence of financial responsibility to be displayed on a wireless communication device. Showing the insurance proof does not itself consent to law-enforcement access to other contents of the device.

Crash investigation

Under §28-4134, an officer investigating a motor-vehicle accident generally requires the operator to produce evidence of financial responsibility.

ADOT accident verification

Section 28-4143 authorizes ADOT to verify whether financial responsibility was valid on the date of an accident.

Registration verification

Section 28-4142 authorizes financial-responsibility verification in connection with vehicle registration and renewal.

Current §28-4135 penalties

Violation Minimum civil penalty Additional statutory consequence
First violation $500 Three-month driving-privilege suspension or qualifying restricted privilege under the current statute.
Second within 36 months $750 Six-month driver-license and vehicle-registration/license-plate suspension.
Third or subsequent within 36 months $1,000 One-year driver-license and vehicle-registration/license-plate suspension, with future proof-of-financial-responsibility requirements specified by statute.
An insurance citation does not determine civil liability. Whether a motorist violated the financial-responsibility statute is different from whether that motorist caused the crash and different again from what insurance may ultimately satisfy the victim's damages.

Not every financially responsible Arizona vehicle is insured through an ordinary personal auto policy

Section 28-4007 allows qualifying persons and entities to obtain certificates of self-insurance or partial self-insurance.

More than ten registered vehicles

A person in whose name more than ten motor vehicles are registered may qualify to seek self-insurer status if the statutory requirements are satisfied.

Financial ability matters

ADOT must determine that the applicant is financially able and will continue to be able to pay judgments obtained against the applicant.

Partial self-insurance

Arizona law also provides for qualifying partial self-insurance in specified transportation contexts.

Status can be cancelled

Failure to pay judgments or maintain the statutory financial capacity can support cancellation of the self-insurance certificate.

Large fleet does not mean “no insurance.” When a commercial fleet says it is self-insured, obtain the applicable certificate, identify any retention and excess coverage, determine who administers claims and map every additional commercial layer.

The minimum-limits inquiry should lead directly into a complete coverage investigation

The insurance card answers very little about a serious Arizona crash.

Identify the vehicle. Record owner, VIN, registration, plate and actual use at the time of the crash.
Identify the driver. Determine relationship to owner, household status, employment, permission and purpose of the trip.
Obtain the vehicle owner's liability policy. Request the declarations page, complete policy and all endorsements.
Verify permissive-user status. Determine whether the driver had express or implied permission.
Search for a written excluded-driver endorsement. Obtain the actual signed/written exclusion rather than relying on an adjuster's description.
Identify the driver's own automobile insurance. A driver's policy may contain applicable nonowned-vehicle or other liability protection.
Investigate employment and business use. Look for employer, commercial-auto, hired/nonowned-auto, umbrella and excess policies.
Check specialized vehicle status. Rental, rideshare, delivery, government, commercial and fleet vehicles can trigger different statutes and insurance structures.
Separate the statutory minimum from higher limits. Determine whether an exclusion is alleged against compulsory coverage, excess contractual coverage or both.
Then begin Guide 03. Build a complete policy inventory before concluding that the visible liability limit is all the insurance available.

Documents to obtain

  • insurance identification card
  • complete declarations page
  • complete policy
  • all endorsements
  • named-driver exclusion agreement
  • vehicle registration
  • VIN
  • driver's license
  • crash report
  • ADOT financial-responsibility correspondence
  • coverage-confirmation letter
  • reservation-of-rights letter
  • coverage-denial letter
  • driver's separate policy
  • household policies
  • employer policy
  • commercial-auto policy
  • umbrella policy
  • excess policy
  • fleet self-insurance certificate
  • TNC or delivery records
  • rental agreement where applicable

Common mistakes

“The minimum is $25,000, so the claim is worth $25,000.”

Wrong question. Damages determine the legal loss. Policy limits determine only one potential source of payment.

“The insurance card lists the only policy.”

The card may identify only one primary vehicle policy. Other owner, driver, household, employer, commercial, umbrella or excess coverage may exist.

“The driver wasn't listed, so there is no coverage.”

A covered vehicle's permissive user may be an insured even though not listed as a named insured. Investigate permission and exclusions.

“The driver was excluded.”

Obtain the actual written named-driver agreement and test it against §28-4009 rather than accepting the assertion.

“An exclusion eliminates every dollar.”

Arizona's compulsory financial-responsibility floor and higher contractual liability limits can require separate analyses.

“Self-insured means uninsured.”

It does not. A qualifying self-insurer has elected a different statutory method of demonstrating financial responsibility.

Arizona authority map

Primary Law · A.R.S. §28-4009 Motor vehicle liability policy requirements

Establishes the ordinary 25/50/15 minimum limits, owner's-policy omnibus coverage, operator's policies, written named-driver exclusions, statutory policy requirements and the distinction between compulsory and additional coverage.

Primary Law · A.R.S. §28-4135 Mandatory financial responsibility

Requires vehicles operated on Arizona highways to maintain an authorized form of financial responsibility and establishes evidence, enforcement and penalty provisions.

Primary Law · A.R.S. §28-4134 Law-enforcement verification

Requires financial-responsibility inquiry and production of evidence during qualifying accident and traffic investigations.

Primary Law · A.R.S. §28-4142 Vehicle-registration verification

Provides for state financial-responsibility verification associated with motor-vehicle registration.

Primary Law · A.R.S. §28-4143 Post-accident verification

Authorizes ADOT to verify whether a vehicle involved in an accident had valid financial responsibility on the accident date and creates procedures following a denial or lack of insurance information.

Primary Law · A.R.S. §28-4007 Self-insurance

Establishes Arizona's certificate system for qualifying self-insurers and partial self-insurers.

Arizona Supreme Court · 1963 Schecter v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273

Describes the principal purpose of Arizona's financial-responsibility law as protecting highway users from financial hardship resulting from financially irresponsible motorists.

Arizona Supreme Court · 1963 Jenkins v. Mayflower Insurance Exchange, 93 Ariz. 287

Foundational Arizona authority construing compulsory automobile insurance requirements in light of the Financial Responsibility Act's protection of the public.

Arizona Supreme Court · 1976 Arceneaux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 113 Ariz. 216

Explains that an exclusion cannot defeat the statutory compulsory liability floor in the manner prohibited by Arizona financial- responsibility law, while coverage above the statutory floor can present a separate contractual issue.

Arizona Supreme Court · 1994 Averett v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Arizona, 177 Ariz. 531

Applies Arizona's reasonable-expectations doctrine to a household liability limitation affecting coverage above the compulsory financial-responsibility limits.

Arizona Supreme Court · 1996 Transportation Insurance Co. v. Bruining, 186 Ariz. 224

Important authority concerning compliance with Arizona's statutory requirement that a named-driver exclusion be established by the required written agreement.

Arizona Court of Appeals · 2007 Odom v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Arizona, 216 Ariz. 530

Explains that §28-4009's permissive-user requirement concerns vehicles for which the owner's policy grants coverage and does not require an owner's policy to insure every permissive driver of every nonowned vehicle.

Source-control rule: begin with current §§28-4009 and 28-4135. Then obtain the actual policy and endorsements. Use Arizona appellate authority to determine whether a disputed term can affect the compulsory statutory layer, coverage above that layer, or both.

Frequently asked questions

What is the minimum Arizona liability insurance?

For an ordinary policy under the current §28-4009 framework, the minimum is $25,000 for bodily injury or death of one person, $50,000 for bodily injury or death of two or more people in one accident, and $15,000 for property damage.

Does 25/50/15 mean every injured person can recover $25,000?

No. Each claimant remains subject to the per-person bodily-injury limit, and all bodily-injury claimants collectively are subject to the per-accident limit. Liability, damages and other applicable insurance must also be determined.

Is $25,000 the maximum value of an Arizona injury claim?

No. It is the ordinary minimum per-person liability insurance required by §28-4009. Damages may be much greater, and other insurance or legally responsible parties may exist.

Is someone covered if they borrowed the insured vehicle?

Potentially. Arizona's owner's-policy statute generally requires liability protection for another person using a covered vehicle with the named insured's express or implied permission, subject to applicable statutory provisions and lawful exclusions.

Does permission have to be in writing?

No. Section 28-4009 expressly recognizes both express and implied permission. The facts surrounding vehicle use may therefore determine whether the driver qualifies as a permissive insured.

Can an Arizona policy exclude a particular driver?

Yes. Section 28-4009 permits a named insured and insurer to agree in writing to exclude a specifically designated person as an insured when operating a motor vehicle. Obtain and review the actual written agreement.

Does the driver have to carry a paper insurance card?

Arizona requires evidence of current financial responsibility in the vehicle, but §28-4135 permits the evidence to be displayed electronically on a wireless communication device.

Can the police ask for proof of insurance after a crash?

Yes. Section 28-4134 requires the financial-responsibility inquiry in qualifying accident and traffic investigations.

Can Arizona verify the insurance after the crash?

Yes. Section 28-4143 allows ADOT to verify whether financial responsibility was in force on the date of the accident.

Does a household exclusion eliminate all liability coverage?

Not necessarily. Arizona decisions distinguish the compulsory statutory liability protection from coverage purchased above the statutory minimum. The actual exclusion, current statute and Arizona contract-law principles must be analyzed.

What does it mean when a company says it is self-insured?

It can mean the company has qualified under Arizona's statutory self-insurance system rather than purchasing an ordinary liability policy for the entire risk. The self-insurance certificate, claims administrator, retention and any excess coverage should be identified.

What should I do if the insurer says only $25,000 is available?

Treat that as the beginning of the coverage investigation. Obtain the policy and declarations, determine ownership and insured status, and search for driver, household, employer, commercial, umbrella, excess and first-party coverage. Guide 03 addresses that investigation.

The minimum policy is the beginning of the insurance inquiry—not the end.

Confirm the vehicle. Identify the owner and driver. Determine permission. Obtain the complete policy. Examine any written driver exclusion. Identify the actual liability limits. Then search for every additional owner, driver, household, employer, commercial, umbrella, excess or specialized policy that may respond to the crash.

Public legal education only. VictimsGuide.com provides public-interest legal education. It does not provide individualized legal advice, does not offer or accept legal representation, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Arizona insurance coverage depends on the actual policy, endorsements, insured persons, vehicles, permission, exclusions, facts of the crash and current Arizona law. Verify controlling primary authority before legal reliance.