Legal Opinion

Voland v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided February 11, 1997No. 2 CA-CV 96-0202PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PELANDER, Presiding Judge.

This case presents an issue of first impression in Arizona: does the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing require an insurance carrier to pay undisputed portions of uninsured motorist (UM) benefits to its insured/elaimant before the latter executes a release or obtains an arbitration award? Concluding that defendants/appellees Farmers and State Farm (the carriers) had no such obligation in this ease, the trial court granted summary judgment for them and against their insured, plaintiff/appellant Kim Voland. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

The…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial HospitalArizona Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Rawlings v. ApodacaArizona Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Noble v. National American Life InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1981
  4. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. ShraderWyoming Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Deese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Williams v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Cindy Keefe v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  3. Kosierowski v. Allstate InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  5. Rowland v. Great States InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001

25 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