The contractual limitation in the policy may cap State Farm's obligation to pay damages, but it does not prohibit a court from awarding attorneys' fees that are specifically authorized by law. Attorneys' fees requested and awarded pursuant to statute are not damages caused by an uninsured driver. ¶ 21 Assyia did not request or receive damages in excess of policy limits.6 (App.2009) (“Underinsured motorist coverage arises from contractual liability.”).
there would be no claim against the company”) Ariz. Mason, 210 So.2d 474 (.App.1968)) (six-year statute of limitations for written contract actions governs uninsured motorist claims because “ithout the policy. at 16, ¶ 27, 6 P.3d at 321 (“The test is whether the defendant would have a duty of care under the circumstances even in the absence of a contract.”) cf.
We agree with Assyia that “he tort committed by the adverse driver was simply the trigger for contractual duty.” But for the insurance contract, State Farm would have no duty to compensate Assyia for damages caused by the uninsured driver. 31, 32, 672 P.2d 983, 984 (App.1983)) (“An insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and its insured.”). ¶ 13 Assyia sued State Farm based on her contract with the insurer.As the prevailing party, though, Assyia is awarded her appellate costs upon compliance with ARCAP 21. ¶ 34 Assyia requests attorneys' fees and costs incurred on appeal, citing only ARCAP 21, which does not provide a substantive basis for a fee award.We cannot say the court's ultimate decision “exceed the bounds of reason.” See Associated Indem., 143 Ariz. Although State Farm argued its delay in paying the UM policy limits was due to Assyia's failure to link the August fall to the auto accident in a more timely fashion, the superior court had the discretion to reject this characterization or to conclude, based on the Associated Indemnity factors, that the fee award was nonetheless reasonable. State Farm's somewhat generalized advocacy for a $2500 to $3500 award is unpersuasive. ¶ 29 Once a party establishes entitlement to fees and meets the minimum requirements in an application and affidavit, as Assyia did here, the burden shifts to the party opposing the fee award to demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the requested fees.
An action sounds in tort when a “mere bystander” could recover because the liability exists without a contract. § 12–341.01, the words ‘arising out of a contract’ describe an action in which a contract was a factor causing the dispute.”).
“he trial court has substantial discretion to determine who is a ‘successful party.’ ” Fulton Homes Corp. ¶ 32 A cost award “is mandatory in favor of the successful party.” In re Estate of Miles, 172 Ariz.
There is much economic and strategic momentum now carrying the relationship forward. Similarly, in recent years the United States has strengthened its ties with India, an arch rival of Pakistan. In Afghanistan, the United States has accused Pakistan of destabilizing the American efforts by harboring the Taliban and its affiliates, particularly the Haqqanis. With regard to both, Pakistan was seen an irritant. In part, this reflected a change in America’s South Asia policy, which seemed to be based on two underlying principles: ending the war in Afghanistan and improving its partnership with India. National Security Advisor John Bolton’s acknowledgement of India’s right to self-defense during the crisis was tantamount to an American green signal for the Indian airstrikes that followed the suicide bombing in Kashmir. Similarly, during the Indo-Pak crisis earlier this year, the United States had clearly sided with India. Last year in a tweet, he accused Pakistan of “giving us nothing but lies and deceit” and immediately suspended financial aid to Pakistan.