Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

State v. University Physicians Inc.

12/13/1994

l year . . . ." Arizona State Senate Comm. on Government, Fact Sheet for S.B. 1337 (1982).


Risk Management extended the state-provided insurance to UPI because Risk Management determined that such action was in the "best interests of the state." Risk Management did this extension even though Physicians were not acting as state employees and could leave the program at any time. Risk Management wedged UPI into a system that did not contemplate an entity leaving the state insurance program, and now Risk Management does not like the financial results when this occurs. The negative financial results described by Risk Management do not influence our interpretation of the statutes. Because Risk Management authorized Physicians to participate in the state insurance program, Risk Management must endure the consequences. The statutes mandate occurrence coverage, and Risk Management must provide coverage in compliance with the statutes.


Conclusion


The state insurance program, pursuant to A.R.S sections 41-621 to -625, provides participants with insurance coverage for liability for acts and omissions. In each of the eight fiscal years that UPI purchased insurance from Risk Management, UPI paid the premium before the coverage for the year's acts and omissions began. Having paid for coverage for liability arising out of the acts and omissions for eight years, UPI is entitled to receive claims services, defense, and indemnification for those acts and omissions no matter when the claims are made. Risk Management was not free to abandon ongoing and future litigation for claims which assert liability for occurrences during the years for which UPI paid for insurance.


For the foregoing reasons we reverse the trial court's ruling and remand.


ATTORNEYS' FEES


Both parties request attorneys' fees pursuant to A.R.S. section 12-341.01 (1992). Because this case arises out of a contract, and UPI is the successful party on appeal, we grant UPI's request for attorneys' fees and deny Risk Management's request for attorneys' fees.


EDWARD C. VOSS, Judge


CONCURRING:


SUSAN A. EHRLICH,


Presiding Judge, Department C


SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge






Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE