Teufel v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 244 Ariz. 383 (2018)(Arizona Supreme Court decision in favor of client/homeowner; significant ruling determining that insured homeowner was entitled to a defense for common law negligence claim involving due to construct a home as a reasonable builder would.)
Teufel v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 WL 1882330 (May 9, 2017) (matter of first impression holding that client/insured owed a defense by American Family for suit filed by buyer of insured’s home for various defects; contractual liability exclusion did not apply.)
Stankova v Metropolitan Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 788 F3d 1012 (9th Cir., 2015)(ground-breaking case concerning coverage for insured homeowner under fire policy where cabin was destroyed by mud-slides proximately caused by preceding wildfire; anti-concurrent causation provision held unenforceable.)Colorado Casualty Ins. Co. v Safety Control Co., 2012 WL 3964982 (Validity and effect of Damron Agreement involving contractor and its CGL carrier); Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. DGG & CAR, Inc., 183 P.3d 513 (2008); insurer client prevails in reversing $1.6 million dollar judgment; court held 284 separate thefts by insured's employee constitutes one occurrence within meaning of $50,000 employee dishonesty policy); Cyberdyne Systems, Inc. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., Memorandum Decision, April 19, 2007 (successfully defended carrier against claims of breach of contract, bad faith, tortious interference with contract, conversion and civil conspiracy); Federated Service Ins. Co. v. Tires Plus, Inc., et al., September 25, 2006, Memorandum Decision, U.S.D.C., District of New Mexico (insurer client prevails as to application of first-published exclusion relative to trademark claim asserted against insured); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Lloyds, et al., Memorandum Decision, dated October 19, 2000 (affirming $4 million dollar judgment in favor of client; coverage dispute involving interplay between general and professional liability policies); Ogden v. USF&G, 188 Ariz. 132, 933 P.2d 1200 (1996); (insurer/client prevails; insured's employee not insured under commercial auto policy); Wilshire Ins. Co. v. Home Indemnity Co., 179 Ariz. 602, 880 P.2d 1148 (App. 1994) (effect of permissive user exclusion on commercial vehicles); Columbia Casualty Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 178 Ariz. 104, 870 P.2d 1200 (App. 1994) (dispute between primary and excess carrier over apportionment of defense costs); Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v.McKeon, 170 Ariz. 75, 821 P.2d 766 (App. 1991) (dispute between carrier and insured over prejudgment interest on first-party claim); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Advance Roofing, 163 Ariz. 476, 788 P.2d 1227 (App. 1990) (insurer/client prevails; seminal case in Arizona establishing principles of law pertaining to faulty construction claims).
You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.