Schultz v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• upholding a non-duplication endorsement in an UM case, reasoning that “a non-duplication endorsement is enforceable if it does not interfere with the insured’s right to full recovery for her loss”
• dispute between insured and insurer over nonduplication of medical benefits endorsement in an insurance contract
• “We have previously determined that A.R.S. § 20-259.01 is intended to require, when possible, full indemnification of insured victims who have accidents with uninsured or underinsured motorists.”
• non-duplication endorsement in UM policy upheld so long as it does not prevent the insured from fully recovering her damages
• provision enforced to the extent necessary to avoid double recovery
• provision enforced to the extent necessary to avoid double recovery

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).