Legal Opinion

Transportation Insuarnce v. Bruining

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1996No. CV-95-0370-PR/APublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MOELLER, Justice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A.R.S. § 28-1170(B)(3) provides that an insurer and a named insured may exclude coverage for a named driver in an automobile liability policy “by agreement in writing.” The issue in this case is whether this statutory requirement was met so as to exclude one of the insured’s employees. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the statutory requirement had been met, resulting in no liability coverage for an accident in which the employee in question was one of the drivers. In a split decision order on accelerated appeal, the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Sandoval v. ChenowethArizona Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Arceneaux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Beacon Insurance Co. of America v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Allstate Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Averett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. KPNX Broadcasting Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Arizona Department of Revenue v. DoughertyArizona Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-PachecoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
  4. Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlCCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  5. Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa CountyArizona Supreme Court · 2004

12 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