Legal Opinion

Purvis v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 12, 1994No. 1 CA-CV 91-0511PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GRANT, Judge.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in granting Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company’s (“Hartford’s”) motion to intervene. The appellants (“Purvis” and “Tanner”), were the plaintiff and defendant in the wrongful death suit filed in the trial court. They entered into a Damron 1 -type agreement which was approved by the trial court. They now seek to have this court set aside the damage award entered on jury verdicts in the subsequent trial on damages in which Hartford was granted leave to intervene. We find appellants’…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Damron v. SledgeArizona Supreme Court · 1969
  2. George and Betty Lorenz, Cross-Appellants v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
  3. Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd.Arizona Supreme Court · 1992
  4. The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a Connecticut Corporation v. Gulf Insurance Company, a Missouri CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  5. Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Shephard on Behalf of Shephard v. ScheelerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1997
  2. Dowling v. StapleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  3. Hospital Underwriting Group, Inc. v. Summit Health Ltd., Sarahmarge Crigler, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
  4. Boyle v. Zurich American Insurance Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015
  5. City of Tucson v. Pima CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001

4 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