Court Opinion

ID: 9574448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:05:03.440118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:35.331521
License: Public Domain

FROEB, Judge,
dissenting:
Insurance coverage may be provided by oral agreement under appropriate circumstances. Ranger Insurance Co. v. Phillips, 25 Ariz.App. 426, 544 P.2d 250 (1976). But that is not to say in Arizona coverage is created by “estoppel.” Sellers v. Allstate Insurance Co., 113 Ariz. 419, 555 P.2d 1113 (1976). Since appellant has relied on estoppel to create coverage in this case, I would affirm the summary judgment in favor of appellee.
There is also another reason. The binder issued by appellee stated that it was issued subject to “all the terms and conditions of the policy regularly issued by the company.” This written binder forecloses, in my opinion, any contention that coverage was extended orally beyond the terms and conditions of the policy “regularly” issued by the appellee.
Under the rule espoused by the majority, insurance companies will seldom be willing to bind coverage immediately (with or without a written binder). The natural consequence of recognizing coverage by “estoppel” is to make immediate coverage hard to obtain and to defer coverage until a written policy can be processed and issued, often a period of several weeks.