Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Quihuis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

April 4, 2014

YOLANDA E. QUIHUIS and ROBERT QUIHUIS, a married couple, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee

As Amended May 6, 2014.

D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00376-RCC.

For Plaintiffs-Appellants: Jeffrey A. Imig, Haralsan, Miller, Pitt, Feldmen & McAnally, PLC, Tucson, AZ.

For Defendant-Appellee: David M. Bell, Howard L. Andari, David M. Bell & Associates, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ.

Before: Richard C. Tallman and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge.[*]

OPINION

ORDER CERTIFYING QUESTION TO THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT

Page 912

ORDER

We respectfully request that the Supreme Court of Arizona exercise its discretion to decide the certified question set forth in Part II of this order.

I. COUNSEL

Pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 27(a)(3)(C), the names and addresses of the counsel appearing in the matter are:

For Plaintiffs-Appellants: Jeffrey A. Imig, Haralsan, Miller, Pitt, Feldmen & McAnally, PLC One South Church Ave., Suite 900 Tucson, AZ 85701 Tel.: 520-792-3836.

For Defendant-Appellee: David M. Bell, Howard L. Andari, David M. Bell & Associates, PLLC, 1850 E. Thunderbird Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85022 Tel.: 602-354-0050.

II. QUESTION CERTIFIED

Pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 27, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, before which this appeal is pending, requests that the Supreme Court of Arizona answer the question presented below. This court will accept the Arizona Supreme Court's decision on this question. Our phrasing of the question is not intended to restrict the Arizona Supreme Court's consideration of the case or formulation of the question. See Broad v. Mannesmann Anlagenbau AG, 196 F.3d 1075, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999). The question certified is as follows:

Whether a default judgment against insured-defendants that was entered pursuant to a Damron[1] agreement that stipulated facts determinative of both liability and coverage has (1) collateral estoppel effect and precludes litigation of that issue in a subsequent coverage action against the insurer, as held in Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood, 209 Ariz. 137, 98 P.3d 572 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2004), or (2) no preclusive or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.