Michael J. Raymond

 

Practice Areas

• Insurance Coverage (75%); Insurance Bad Faith (25%)

---

Admitted

• 1983, Arizona

Law School

• Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington, IN, J.D.

Biography

• Honored to be selected in the 2026 edition of America’s Best lawyers, Arizona’s Michael Raymond has devoted the last 42 years to developing, indeed, creating Arizona insurance law.  His practice focuses on insurance coverage with special emphasis on complex property and casualty coverage matters. Since 1983 Mr. Raymond has successfully represented policyholders and insurance carriers, both at the trial and appellate levels not to mention in various tribal courts in Arizona. 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 detailed below, he has been at the forefront of some of Arizona’s most important insurance cases over the past five decades. 

Birthplace

• Owosso, Michigan

Enduring Philosophy 

Michael has always admired Abraham Lincoln and in particular his singular approach to the law. Mr. Lincoln believed that a lawyer's moral compass and honesty were paramount, even when representing a diverse range of clients from powerful railroads to impoverished individuals. While Abe represented many different interests throughout his career, he emphasized that a lawyer must be guided by justice, not by a client's malice or greed. 

For over 42 years, Michael has been guided by honest Abe’s wisdom and moral compass.

Recent Court Decisions/Appellate Results

Cravens v Montano, 567 P.3d 745 (2025); another successful outcome for Michael in the Arizona Supreme Court. In a victory for Michael’s insurer client, The Arizona Supreme Court held that the term, “in connection with your business,” as defined in a standard commercial automobile insurance policy, requires a covered vehicle to be used by an employee in furtherance of an employer’s business purpose, which does not include a routine commute to or from the employer’s office. As such, the court reversed a $4 million judgment against Michael’s client. 

Ryder v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2023 WL 4942039, (Ariz. App. August 2, 2023); another successful reversal of a trial court decision. In a win for Michael’s homeowner client, the Court of Appeals held that a jury could conclude that the homeowner’s water loss was within the scope of State Farm’s coverage 

Employers Mutual Cas. Co. v McPaul, 804 Fed. Appx. 756 (Mem) (9th Cir. 2020); In a case involving the Navajo Nation that has been pending for over a decade, Michael successfully shepherded his client out of Navajo Tribal Court; the 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court decision that tribal jurisdiction did not lie. Negotiating and issuing a general liability insurance contract to a non-Navajo entity occurs entirely outside of tribal land and as such bear no direct connection to tribal lands, regardless of the insured’s tortious conduct on tribal land. 

Navigators Ins. Co. v. First Mercury Ins. Co., 1CA-CV-19-0744 (Memorandum Decision filed October 6, 2020). 

$1.65 million judgment for RG&M's client affirmed by unanimous panel of Division One of Arizona Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court rejected numerous claimed errors from appellant primary insurer and affirmed the jury's finding that the primary insurer acted in bad faith when it rejected multiple opportunities to settle a claim against its insured. 

The evidence presented by RG&M at trial more than adequately allowed the jury to have found that the primary insurer did not adequately account for the strength of the underlying claimant's case or the financial risk to which it would expose the excess insurer if settlement was not reached. As such, the primary insurer "knew it was not acting as a prudent insurer would". 

The Court also awarded RG&M's clients its attorneys' fees on appeal. The case had been pending for five years. 

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). Michael again prevails in the State’s highest court. The 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). One of Michael’s proudest accomplishments for Arizona policyholders. Seminal homeowners case and critically important  victory for thousands of Arizona homeowners who suffer damage from mudslides following wildfires. 

  Other 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); Stellar record in the Arizona Supreme Court continues. 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; one of the earliest construction defect cases and an important stepping stone for construction and coverage lawyers in Arizona; stands for the proposition that faulty workmanship, standing alone, does not constitute an “occurrence” under a general liability policy.