- Insurance Coverage (75%); Insurance Bad Faith (25%)
- Indiana University School of Law – Bloomington, IN, J.D.
- Honored to be selected as one of Arizona’s Finest Lawyers, Michael Raymond has devoted the last 36 years to developing Arizona insurance law. His practice focuses on insurance coverage with special emphasis on complex property and casualty coverage matters. Since 1983 Mr. Raymond has represented policyholders and insurance carriers, both at the trial and appellate levels. An AV rated lawyer, Mr. Raymond enjoys the highest rating possible from Martindale-Hubbell, and is listed in the Bar Registry of Preeminent Lawyers. And as noted below, he has been at the forefront of some of Arizona’s most important insurance cases over the past four decades.
Recent Court Decisions/Appellate Results
Navigators Ins. Co. v. First Mercury Ins. Co., Maricopa Co. Sup. Ct. (verdict rendered May 13, 2019).
Million dollar unanimous verdict in favor of client as against primary insurer for bad faith failure to settle claim against mutual insured. With interest and attorneys’ fees awarded, judgment in favor of client entered for $1.63 million.
Employers Mutual Cas. Co. v. Navajo Nation, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1144, (D. Ariz., April 4, 2019)
In a significant victory for insurance company client, court determined that tribal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over non-tribal entity where insurer did not insure tribal member or entity nor had it entered onto or conducted any activity on tribal land.
Teufel v. American Family Ins. Co. 244 Ariz. 383, (2018). Arizona Supreme Court affirms in part Court of Appeals decision; insurer required to provide defense to insured; contractual liability exclusion ambiguous and therefore construed against the insurer.
Teufel v. American Family Ins. Co., 2017 WL 1882330 (Ariz. App. May 9, 2017). Insured homeowner prevails; insurer required to defend claim against insured where buyer of insured’s home sustained damages when hillside collapsed)
Stankova v. Met. Prop. & Cas. Co., 788 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015). Important victory for Arizona homeowners who suffer damage from mudslides following wildfires)
Cases of Interest
- Colorado Casualty Ins. Co. v Safety Control Co., 230 Ariz. 560 (App. 2012) (Validity and effect of Damron Agreement involving contractor and its CGL carrier)
- Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. DGG & CAR, Inc., 183 P.3d 513 (2008); insurer client prevails in reversing $1.6 million dollar judgment; court held 284 separate thefts by insured’s employee constitutes one occurrence within meaning of $50,000 employee dishonesty policy)
- Cyberdyne Systems, Inc. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., Memorandum Decision, April 19, 2007 (successfully defended carrier against claims of breach of contract, bad faith, tortious interference with contract, conversion and civil conspiracy)
- Federated Service Ins. Co. v. Tires Plus, Inc., et al., September 25, 2006, Memorandum Decision, U.S.D.C., District of New Mexico (insurer client prevails as to application of first-published exclusion relative to trademark claim asserted against insured)
- Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Lloyds, et al., Memorandum Decision, dated October 19, 2000 (affirming $4 million dollar judgment in favor of client; coverage dispute involving interplay between general and professional liability policies)
- Ogden v. USF&G, 188 Ariz. 132; (insurer/client prevails; insured’s employee not insured under commercial auto policy)
- Wilshire Ins. Co. v. Home Indemnity Co., 179 Ariz. 602, 880 P.2d 1148 (App. 1994) (effect of permissive user exclusion on commercial vehicles)
- Columbia Casualty Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 178 Ariz. 104, (App. 1994) (dispute between primary and excess carrier over apportionment of defense costs)
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v.McKeon, 170 Ariz. 75, (App. 1991) (dispute between carrier and insured over prejudgment interest on first-party claim)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Advance Roofing, 163 Ariz. 476, (App. 1990) (insurer/client prevails; coverage dispute involving claim against insured for breach of construction contract; seminal case in Arizona for what constitutes a covered occurrence in construction setting)