Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Dissent
dissenting.
¶ 311 respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision. I would affirm the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Hallmark on the grounds that the plain language of A.R.S. § 20-259.01 does not require Hallmark to include a premium in its UM/UIM selection form.
¶ 32 In reaching my conclusion, I am guided by two well-established principles of statutory construction. First, “[o]ur goal in interpreting statutes is to fulfill the intent and purpose of the legislature.” Garden Lakes Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Madigan, 204 Ariz. 238, 241, ¶ 14, 62 P.3d 983, 986 (App.2003)…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- Schade v. DiethrichArizona Supreme Court · 1988
- Ballesteros v. American Standard InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 2011
- NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- Ormsbee v. Allstate InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1993
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.