The Reversal of an Arizona Divergence – 3
The distinction between dishonesty and concealment or misrepresentation seems elusive at best and certainly is not one that supports the imposition of different burdens. The Supreme Court understood, and now requires, that courts in Arizona never apply different burdens to establish one defense over the another raised by insurers to a claim of an insured. The Arizona Supreme Court relied on the opinion of another court that succinctly explained that to require different burdens of proof for dishonesty, arson, and concealment or misrepresentation is both illogical and impractical
The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.