Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 2
| Decision Date | 04 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 694 P.2d 835,143 Ariz. 547 |
| Parties | PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY of ARIZONA, Defendant/Appellant. 5175. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment involving the effect of a release. On May 7, 1982, Patrick Hoban was operating a vehicle when it was involved in an accident with a motorcycle operated by Thomas Whatton. Hoban was insured by Mid-Century Insurance Company/Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona (Farmers) and had policy limits of $15,000 per person. Whatton was insured by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (Progressive) and his policy had underinsured motorist coverage. Whatton made a claim against Farmers for his injuries and Farmers settled for the policy limits of $15,000, which it paid. It also sent Whatton a standard release which Whatton altered by adding the following language, "[T]his release shall not affect in any way or prejudice [T]homas Whatton's right to make and perfect an 'under insured' motorist claim persuant [sic] to his own insurance policy." Whatton then made a claim against Progressive under the underinsured motorist coverage.
Progressive then brought this action alleging that Farmers claimed the release was a full and complete release, that Whatton claimed it was not, and that if the release were full and complete, then Progressive was relieved from paying Whatton under the underinsured motorist provision because Whatton would have violated the policy provisions by signing a release which prevented Progressive from pursuing its subrogation rights against Hoban.
The case was heard by the trial court, which entered a judgment declaring that the release was not full and complete but rather reserved Progressive's subrogation rights against Hoban. The trial court also declared that Progressive had subrogation rights against Hoban pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-259.01, effective July 25, 1982. The first question presented is what language should be contained in a release signed in favor of the tortfeasor when the claimant intends to make a claim for underinsured motorist coverage from his carrier?
As can be seen from the question, appellant does not contend that the trial court erred in its holding as to the release but instead, invites us to give some guidance to the legal community as to how to frame the language of the release in such instances. Appellant makes several suggestions and says: "This court should declare the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mixton
...(1996) ; see Fragoso v. Fell , 210 Ariz. 427, ¶ 6, 111 P.3d 1027 (App. 2005) (same); see also Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co. , 143 Ariz. 547, 548, 694 P.2d 835, 836 (App. 1985) (appellate courts should not give advisory opinions or decide questions unnecessary to disposi......
-
Comm. for Justice v. Ariz. Sec'y of State's Office
...was not properly before the superior court and is not properly before this court. See Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 143 Ariz. 547, 548, 694 P.2d 835, 836 (App.1985) (“It is not an appellate court's function to declare principles of law which cannot have any pr......
-
State v. Milke
...the murder conviction and death sentence, this issue in the state's cross-appeal is moot. See Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co., 143 Ariz. 547, 548, 694 P.2d 835, 836 (App.1985) (noting that appellate courts should not decide questions that have no practical effect on litig......
-
Golonka v. General Motors Corp.
...address GM's contention that the jury's award of punitive damages was unwarranted. See Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 143 Ariz. 547, 548, 694 P.2d 835, 836 (App.1985) (holding appellate court should refrain from giving advisory opinions). However, we address ......
-
4.4 Subrogation
...extent provided in subsection I of this section." [156]A.R.S. Sec. 20-259.01(I). [157]157 Ariz. 17, 754 P.2d 346 (Ct. App. 1988). [158]143 Ariz. 547, 694 P.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1985). [159]Globe Indem. Co. v. Blomfield, 115 Ariz. 5, 562 P.2d 1372 (Ct. App. 1977). [160]Transnational Ins. Co. v. ......