holding that although an action for misrepresentation under A.R.S. § 20- 433 would normally arise in the context of an insurance contract, a tort committed by an insurer “would not involve a breach of the actual contract; therefore, it would not be an action arising from a contract” under § 12- 341.01
How later courts described this case
- holding that although an action for misrepresentation under A.R.S. § 20- 433 would normally arise in the context of an insurance contract, a tort committed by an insurer “would not involve a breach of the actual contract; therefore, it would not be an action arising from a contract” under § 12- 341.01
- stating that because “the tort of bad faith cannot be committed absent the existence of an insurance contract and a breach thereof,” the tort of bad faith is “intrinsically related to the contract,” such that attorneys’ fees may be awarded under A.R.S. § 12-341.01
- holding that there is no violation of due process when “[a] full hearing was conducted on the issue of attorney’s fees”
- determining tort of bad faith could not be committed without an insurance contract and a breach thereof, and thus, was “so intrinsically related to the contract” that the action arose out of contract
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOLOHAN, Chief Justice,
concurring:
I concur in the result.