Legal Opinion

Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 11, 2013No. 1 CA-CV 12-0141PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KESSLER, Judge.

¶ 1 Plaintiff/Appellant Martina Ramos Melendez (“Melendez”) appeals the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee Hallmark Insurance Company (“Hallmark”). The court held that the form Hallmark used to offer Melendez uninsured and underinsured motorists coverage (“UM” and “UIM”) complied with Arizona Revised Statutes (“AR.S.”) section 20-259.01 (Supp. 2012).1 We hold that the offer did not comply with the statute because it did not include any information about any premium for UM and UIM coverage and thus could not create a binding contract…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Schade v. DiethrichArizona Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Eller Media Co. v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
  3. Gary Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Sun Lodge, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Yollin v. City of GlendaleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  5. Ballesteros v. American Standard InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 2011

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Airth v. Zurich American Insurance CoColorado Court of Appeals · 2018
  2. Newman v. Cornerstone National InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  3. Romero v. HasanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2017
  4. Aguilera v. SannesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2020
  5. Allen v. Prescott ValleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API