of the policy. There is no suggestion that Rollins was not provided with the policy or could not, for some reason personal to him, understand it. The third and fourth situations to which the reasonable expectations doctrine applies under Gordinier require “some activity which can be reasonably attributed to the insurer.” 742 P.2d at 284. NSIC did not choose the language of the Outline or circulate the Outline for promotional purposes. Rather, state law mandated the relevant language of the Outline and required that insurers distribute the Outline of Coverage along with any Medigap policy. Ariz. Admin. Code § R20-6-1113(C). Furthermore, state law mandated the level at which NSIC could cover Rollins’ hospitalization costs. Id. § R20-6-1105(C). Cf. Philadelphia Indemnity, 21 P.3d at 404 (<HOLDING>). If Medigap-covered patients are being misled
holding a variable annuity issued by an insurance company to be a covered security holding an insurance company liable for an accident clearly outside the protection of the policys actual terms but that could reasonably have been expected to be covered based on a promotional brochure drafted and distributed by the insurer holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer holding where an insurance policy indemnifies defense costs paid as a result of occurrences covered that the insurer need only reimburse defense costs for claims that are established to be covered through judgment and settlement and not for claims only potentially falling within the policys coverage holding that a closing protection letter offering to indemnify a mortgage company was not an insurance contract where although issued by an insurance company there was no distribution of the risk