Published Insurance Cases

Phoenix area lawyers Wayne and Mark Arnett, of Arnett & Arnett, have more than 58 years of combined legal experience representing plaintiffs in insurance bad faith matters.  Through their work at both the trial and appellate levels, Wayne and Mark have achieved successful results for their clients while at the same time helping establish precedents which have helped to shape the landscape of insurance law in Arizona.

Below is a list of the published insurance cases that Wayne and Mark have been involved in.  These are only cases taken up on appeal from a lower court that have been certified for publication.  Both Wayne and Mark have been involved in numerous other cases which have not been published by the court and are therefore not listed here.

Notice: The following description of cases is for informational purposes only.  The results obtained were based upon the facts specific to each case and should not be construed as a promise or guarantee of similar results in your case.

Wayne and Mark's Published Insurance Cases:

• Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th  Cir. 2004).  The ninth circuit remanded the case back to district court.  On remand Allstate must show that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.  If so, the court of appeals will hear the merits of the appeal.  If not, the federal courts lack jurisdiction, and case will be remanded back to state court for all further proceedings.

• Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 205 Ariz. 517, 73 P.3d 1252, 406 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 18 (Ct. App. 2003).  Innocent co-insured is not barred from recovery under fire policy even if another insured committed fraud or arson.  There is a factual issue remaining for the trial court to determine whether the insured in this case was innocent.  Further, one-year limitations provision in the insurance policy was unenforceable since the insurer failed to show prejudice from the insureds' delay in filing suit. 

• Deegan v. Continental Cas. Co., 167 F.3d 502, 22 Employee Benefits Cas. 2617, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 934, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1179 (9th Cir. 1999).  Under the insured's ERISA disability plan, the insured was not entitled to disability benefits for his partial disability under the terms of his insurance policy after he began a second job.

• Enyart v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 195 Ariz. 71, 985 P.2d 556, 286 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 10 (Ct. App. 1998).  Annuitant who was promised a back-up annuity was entitled to immediate expectation damages as measured by cost of replacement annuity policy and could bring a tort action against insurer for bad faith, but not common law or statutory consumer fraud.  Insurer's failure to procure back-up annuity as promised did not constitute unfair or deceptive act or practice in business of insurance. 

• Hill v. Chubb Life American Ins. Co., 182 Ariz. 158, 894 P.2d 701 (Ct. App. 1995).  Plaintiff was allowed to maintain his claim for insurer's failure to timely process his application for disability insurance even though he had not yet been asked to pay a premium.  Whether applicant gave consideration was question of fact precluding summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.  The Arizona Supreme Court overruled the Arizona Court of Appeals opinion found at Hill v. Chubb Life American Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 37, 870 P.2d 1133 (Ct. App.1993), that had ruled the opposite.  

• Nahom v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc., 180 Ariz. 548, 885 P.2d 1113 (Ct. App. 1994).  An insured who was insured under two health insurance policies was found to be a third-party beneficiary of participation agreement between the hospital and insurer.  Consequently, the hospital had to pay plaintiff the money collected from the insurance company because it had already been paid the agreed rate from the other insurance company. 

• Anderson v. Country Life Ins. Co., 180 Ariz. 625, 886 P.2d 1381 (1994).  When an insurer accepts premium for immediate coverage, a contract for interim insurance is created despite a "conditional receipt" giving the health insurer power to defeat such coverage by not issuing policy of insurance.  Additionally, failure to submit a claim does not preclude recovery where insurer indicates that no coverage existed.  

• Hayes v. Continental Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264, 872 P.2d 668 (1994).  A.R.S. §23-930 which provides that the Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction as prescribed in "this section" over complaints involving alleged unfair claim processing practices or bad faith by workers' compensation carriers does not prevent common-law actions for bad faith against compensation carriers.  This case overruled Hays v. Continental Ins. Co., 172 Ariz. 573, 838 P.2d 1334 (Ct. App. 1992), which held the opposite. 

• Fobes v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc., 176 Ariz. 407, 861 P.2d 692 (Ct. App. 1993).  An insurer owes no duty of good faith to insured's widow who was not an insured under the policy. 

• Melancon v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 174 Ariz. 344, 849 P.2d 1374 (Ct. App. 1992).  USAA's insurance policy did not authorize insurer to reduce coverage for depreciation.  However, USAA was entitled to a new trial on bad faith because a jury instruction erroneously implied that violation of a Department of Insurance regulation (promulgated under authority of the Arizona Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act) gave the insured the express right to recover damages for USAA's violation of that regulation. 

• Stewart v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 169 Ariz. 99, 817 P.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1991).  Opinions expressed in an insurance application cannot be used to rescind the policy.  Whether questions on the insurance applications concerning any mental disorder or ill health solicited factual responses or opinions is a question of fact and summary judgment was inappropriate. 

• Ward v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies, 152 Ariz. 211, 731 P.2d 106 (Ct. App. 1986). Summary judgment on the bad faith claim was inappropriate because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the insurer's denial of the claim was reasonable.  Summary judgment was also inappropriate on plaintiff's claim under the Insurance Practices Act.  The court also held that there is no private right of action under the Fraudulent Advertising Practices Act.  [However, the Arizona Supreme Court later stated that "any statements made by the court of appeals in Ward adopting the federal standard for determining legislative intent in creating or denying a private right of action arising from a statute providing civil penalties for violation of the statute are overruled."  Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 158 Ariz. 115, 117, 761 P.2d 1019, 1021 (1988)]. 

• Roberts v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 146 Ariz. 284, 705 P.2d 1335 (1985).  Arizona Supreme Court held that an insurance policy that excluded damage done by insects, covered damage done after bees were exterminated by the leakage of honey from their hive because the policy covered any "ensuing loss" from insects.  The court overruled Roberts v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 146 Ariz. 301, 705 P.2d 1352 (Ct. App. 1985), which had held that the policy did not provide coverage.

• Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California, 145 Ariz. 1, 699 P.2d 376 (Ct, App. 1984).  Evidence supported submission of the bad faith case to jury on theory of reckless disregard of absence of reasonable basis for denying claim.  Claims administrator was engaged in joint venture so that it was jointly and severally liable with insurer.  Damages for emotional distress were recoverable even though the insurer did not intentionally cause distress and even though distress was not severe.  Although actual damages for a loss of or injury to credit are recoverable, in this case insureds presented insufficient evidence.  Insureds were not entitled to punitive damages because "something more" than the reckless disregard that is needed to support the bad faith claim is necessary for punitive damages. 

• Brown v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 137 Ariz. 327, 670 P.2d 725 (1983).  Insureds in bad faith cases are entitled to a copy of the claims file to show insurer's conduct. 

• Cain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 135 Ariz. 189, 659 P.2d 1334 (Ct. App. 1983).  Language of the insurance company's conditional receipt given to the insured when company received partial payment of the premium for group health coverage did not preclude the existence of temporary coverage.  Summary judgment by the trial court on breach of contract and bad faith was reversed.