Throughout my years at Merlin Law Group, I have noticed a troubling pattern with insurance carriers: denying claims based on confusing and ambiguous policy language. Perhaps you are challenging a continuous seepage or leakage exclusion or a protective safeguard requirement on your collectibles. It is unlikely the policy defines “seepage” “leakage” or what qualifies as a protective safeguard. However, the Arizona courts and Legislature have brought some clarity to interpreting these unclear provisions.
Continue Reading Clearing Things Up: Interpreting Ambiguities in Arizona Policies

Arizona has a strong interest in ensuring its residents are made whole for injuries sustained while in Arizona. Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 47, 703 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1985). Toward that end, it allows for injured plaintiffs to recover all damages caused by a tortfeasor, including economic and emotional damages. Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 161, 726 P.2d 565, 577 (1986).
Continue Reading Is Expert Testimony Required For a Jury To Award Emotional and Mental Distress Damages In Arizona?

Public adjusters play a critical role in claims adjudication process and can often serve as the policyholder’s ally in getting claims disputes resolved prior to litigation. The Arizona Revised Statutes define “Adjuster” as any person who for compensation, fee or commission either:
Continue Reading Defining the Role and Requirements of Public Adjusters in Arizona

Similar to other states, Arizona has adopted unfair claims settlement practices statutes and regulations. While one cannot a bring a private cause of action under the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act1 and its companion regulations, they lay out specific standards for insurers to promptly investigate and process claims.
Continue Reading Arizona Claims Handling Guidelines at a Glance

Once an insurance carrier has paid its insured for a covered loss, the insurance carrier is “subrogated” to the insureds claim against the third party primarily liable for loss. The insurance carrier is then entitled to bring an action against the third party whose tortious or wrongful conduct caused the loss.1 Essentially, the insurance carrier “stands in the shoes of the insured” taking on the insured rights and remedies against the third party liable for the loss, but subjects itself to the defenses the third party could assert against the insured.2
Continue Reading Applicability of the Made Whole Doctrine in Arizona Property Insurance Subrogation Suits