 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood9/29/2004
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1-4
BACKGROUND 5-22
DISCUSSION 23-157
APPEAL 23-121
I. Morris -related issues 23-65
A. Effect of Morris agreement on liability and damage issues 23-37
B. The Smith decision 38-41
C. Conflict of interest issues 42-47
D. Other policy considerations 48-54
E. Failure to follow pretrial order 55-61
F. AAU's challenge to particular Intervenors 62-65
II. Trigger of insurance coverage 66-99
III. Reasonableness 100-121
A. Background 100-105
B. Legal framework 106-109
C. Global settlement 110-116
D. Evidence of insurance reserves 117-118
E. Specific dollar amount 119-120
F. Other issues 121
CROSS-APPEAL 122-157
I. AAU's occurrence policy and Intervenor Montejano 122-123
II. Intervenors Lopez and Estes 124-125
III. Intervenors' request for money judgment 126-157
A. Procedural background 126-135
B. Availability of supplemental relief 136-143
C. Continued validity of Gerardo judgment 144-154
D. Other considerations 155-157
DISPOSITION 158
This declaratory relief action (DRA) relating to insurance coverage arises from underlying mass-tort actions brought by the seventeen appellees/cross-appellants and approximately 1,600 other individuals (hereinafter, "Intervenors") against Tucson Airport Authority and the City of Tucson (collectively, TAA/City). During the relevant time frame, TAA/City was insured under comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies issued by appellant/cross-appellee Associated Aviation Underwriters (AAU). In the underlying tort actions, AAU defended TAA/City under a reservation of rights. After AAU filed this DRA to contest coverage, Intervenors and TAA/City entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris, 154 Ariz. 113, 741 P.2d 246 (1987). Pursuant to that agreement, the trial court later entered a stipulated judgment in favor of Intervenors and approximately 1,600 other plaintiffs and against TAA/City in the aggregate sum of almost $35 million.
In this DRA the trial court ultimately ruled as a matter of law, based primarily on the Morris agreement and consent judgment, that AAU's policies in force from 1960 to 1969 covered Intervenors' claims against TAA/City in the underlying tort cases. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court later ruled that the Morris agreement was reasonable and confirmed the earlier ruling on coverage. AAU appeals on multiple grounds from the ensuing judgment entered against it and in favor of fourteen trial intervenors in September 2002. Intervenors cross-appeal from various rulings the trial court previously made, and three Intervenors appeal from the trial court's subsequent judgment of March 2003 relating to them.
On AAU's appeal, we conclude that, to the extent coverage under AAU's policies hinges on an initial determination of liability against the insureds, TAA/City, the Morris agreement and consent judgment preclude AAU from litigating what essentially are liability issues in its effort to defeat coverage. In the Morris context, liability-related issues are not pertinent to coverage, but rather only to the separate question of whether the Morris agreement is reasonable and prudent. Because the tri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|