About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/aliliabil0032 and id is 1 raw text is: . THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations LIABILITY INSURANCE CHAPTER 1. BASIC LIABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT RULES § 1. Definitions Ariz.2024. Subsec. (12) quot. in sup. Bicyclist sued city and police officer to recover for injuries he sustained in a multi-vehicle accident in which he was hit by officer's vehicle. The trial court denied city and officer's motion to dismiss, in which they argued that bicyclist's notices of claim did not comply with the requirements of the state statute governing claims against a public entity or public employment because the notices did not contain a specific amount for which he would settle his claim. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the notices filed by bicyclist presented alternative offers. This court vacated in part and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action, holding that bicyclist's offer to settle for the greater of $1 million or the applicable insurance policy limits was not a specific amount, and thus, bicyclist's notice did not comply with the statute. The court cited Restatement of Liability Insurance § 1 in reasoning that city could not be certain from the notice what specific amount bicyclist was willing to accept to settle his claims, and that, because city held multiple insurance policies and was self-insured up to $3 million, an insurance policy might not be applicable if bicyclist's damages were less than the self-insured retention. City of Mesa v. Ryan in and for County of Maricopa, 557 P.3d 316, 320. TOPIC 1. INTERPRETATION § 3. The Plain-Meaning Rule C.A.10, 2024. Com. (c) quot. in sup. After real estate developer's business-risk insurer denied developer's claim to repair a deflecting concrete slab that was installed by the general contractor's subcontractor, developer entered an agreement with its general contractor, that was responsible for hard costs of repairing the slab, to work together to pursue a claim against developer's insurer for the repair, agreeing to split any net litigation proceeds; one month later, developer sued insurer, alleging that insurer breached the parties' insurance policy by refusing to cover the claim. The jury found in favor of plaintiff on its breach-of-contract claim. This court reversed in part and remanded, holding that the text COPYRIGHT C2025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.