I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

Arizona

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Statutes of Limitations (ARIZONA)

Personal Injury - 2 yrs.* [A.R.S. § 12-542]

Wrongful Death - 2 yrs.* [A.R.S. § 12-542]

Med Mal - 2 yrs.* [A.R.S. § 12-542]

Property Damage - 2 yrs.* [A.R.S. § 12-542]

All Product Liability Cases involving Personal Injury, Death or Property Damage - 2 yrs.* [A.R.S. §§ 12-542; 12-551]

Written Contracts - 6 yrs. [A.R.S. § 12-548]; but 4 yrs. if Contract executed outside of Arizona [A.R.S. § 12-544]

Oral Contracts - 3 yrs. [A.R.S. § 12-543]

Contracts for Sale (goods) and Breach of Warranty - 4 yrs. (from tender of delivery) [A.R.S. § 47-2725]

*Discovery rule applies [Walk v. Ring, 44 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2002); Anson v. American Motors Corp., 747 P.2d 581 (Ariz. App. 1987)]

Statutes of Repose (ARIZONA)

Products - None (declared unconstitutional)

Construction of Real Property - 8 yrs. (may sue within 1 yr. if injury occurred or latent defects discovered during 8th year) [A.R.S. § 12-552]

Claims Against Public/Gov. Entities (NOTE: “sovereign immunity” rules may apply) (ARIZONA)

Against Public Entities (State and Political Subdivisions) - Notice within 180 days [A.R.S. § 12-821.01] and Suit within 1 yr. [A.R.S. § 12-821]

Comparative Negligence (ARIZONA)

Pure comparative (Plaintiff can recover even if 99% at fault) [A.R.S. § 12-2505]

 

 

Made Whole Doctrine (MWD) (ARIZONA)

Application in the subrogation context is unknown.

Economic Loss Doctrine (ELD) (Assuming No Injury to Person or Damage to “Other Property”) (ARIZONA)

Recognized/applied in product liability and construction cases. [Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc., 223 P.3d 664 (Ariz. 2010)].

However, Arizona does not endorse a blanked application of ELD.  Instead, 3 factors must be analyzed: (1) nature of product defect; (2) manner in which the loss occurred; and (3) type of loss for which Plaintiff seeks redress.  Therefore, a buyer could potentially recover under tort theory because the loss resulted from unreasonably dangerous defect in a product and the loss occurred by fire in a sudden accident which was of type which could endanger persons and other property [Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 694 P.2d 198 (Ariz. 1984)]

Certificate/Affidavit Of Merit Requirements (Claims Against Licensed Professionals) (ARIZONA)

Plaintiff must file a written statement setting forth whether or not expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the licensed professional’s standard of care or liability for the claim [A.R.S. § 12-2602].

 

Landlord/Tenant Subrogation (ARIZONA)

 

Court will examine the lease to determine and give effect to parties’ intention [General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Traders Furniture Co., 401 P.2d 15 (Ariz. App. 1965)]

Reimbursement of Deductible(s) (ARIZONA)

Auto - Pro rata (must include in subro demand). Property - No law available.

MedPay and PIP (ARIZONA)

MedPay and PIP - No subrogation allowed and/or no such coverage available. 

Note: Insurer may have a lien against any amount in excess of $5,000 and Insurer must compromise the lien in a fair and equitable manner.  In order to perfect the lien, within 60 days after issuing a payment that is more than $5,000, Insurer must record in county recorder’s office. Within 5 days after recording, Insurer must mail a copy of the lien to Insured and to Tortfeasors.  [A.R.S. § 20-259.01].

Liability of Parents (ARIZONA)

$10,000 for malicious or willful misconduct [A.R.S. § 12-661].  Negligence or willful misconduct of a minor driver is imputed to person who signs permit/license application [A.R.S. § 28-3160].

Joint Liability (ARIZONA)

Several liability (Plaintiff can recover from each Defendant only that Defendant’s share of fault); but joint and several liability applies in cases involving vicarious liability or where Defendants acted in concert [A.R.S. § 12-2506]

Independent Cause of Action for Intentional or Negligent Evidence Spoliation (ARIZONA)

Separate tort of spoliation of evidence is not recognized in Arizona [Tobel v. Travelers Ins. Co., 988 P.2d 148 (Ariz. App. 1999)] “There is no need to invoke esoteric theories or recognize some new tort.” [La Raia v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 722 P.2d 286 (Ariz. 1986)]

Conflicts of Law (ARIZONA)

Torts - Arizona will apply the law of the state having the most significant relationship to the occurrence/ parties [Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., 63 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. App. 2003)].  Contracts - Arizona will apply the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction/parties (choice-of-law provisions in contracts are usually enforceable) [Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., 77 P.3d 439 (Ariz. 2003)].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\