 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Hays6/20/1989
n, and unexpected event, usually of an afflictive or unfortunate character, and often accompanied by a manifestation of force . . . .'
Century Mutual Insurance Co. v. Southern Arizona Aviation, Inc., 8 Ariz. App. 384, 386, 446 P.2d 490, 492 (1968), quoting Albuquerque Gravel Products Co. v. American Employers Insurance Co., 282 F.2d 218, 220 (10th Cir.1960). See also Kema Steel, Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., 153 Ariz. 315, 736 P.2d 798 (App.1986).
Hays contends that the Department's order resulting in the cessation of irrigation was unexpected and unintended because Hays neither expected nor intended such results. That position, however, is too simplistic to be realistic. A review of the Department's order declaring the Harquahala Basin to be a subsequent irrigation non-expansion area indicates that the director issued a directive proposing the declaration on December 23, 1980. After notice issued on January 6, 1981, public hearings were held February 18, 1981 and May 25, 1982. The order issued in June 1982. The March 1986 order precluding the Mollets from irrigating their property was nothing more than an order enforcing the June 1982 order. It cannot seriously be contended that the actions of the Department, taken pursuant to the directives of the legislature under the Groundwater Code, were unintended and unexpected. Thus, there was no triggering accident or occurrence under any of the policies in question.
Having concluded that there was no occurrence under the policy terms, we need not address the issue of whether the Mollets' claimed damages fall under the policy definitions of "property damage."
Appellee will be awarded attorney's fees on appeal upon compliance with Rule 21(c), Ariz.R.Civ.App.P., 17B A.R.S.
The summary judgment entered in favor of Western is affirmed.
|