Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00274/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00274-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sprint Communications Company LP,

Plaintiff,

v. 

FNF Construction, Inc.,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-00274-TUC- BGM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant FNF Construction Inc.’s Motion 

in Limine (Doc. 68) regarding references, evidence, testimony, or instructions concerning 

liability created under the Arizona Underground Facilities Act (“AUFA”). Plaintiff has 

filed its response in opposition (Doc. 69).

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) alleged causes of action for strict liability, 

negligence, and trespass. Defendant moved to dismiss the statutory causes of action as 

well as any liability under the Arizona Underground Facilities Act (“AUFA”) because they 

were time-barred. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 3d Claim for Relief (Doc. 33). Pursuant to 

stipulation by the Parties, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s ThirdClaim for Relief for Strict 

Liability. Order 10/19/2018 (Doc. 39). Defendant now seeks to preclude Plaintiff from 

“presenting evidence, testifying, implying, or presenting argument regarding purported 

liability by FNF for allegedly violating the AUFA because liability under the AUFA is 

time-barred.” Def.’s Mot. in limine (Doc. 68) at 2.

The AUFA provides:

Case 4:18-cv-00274-BGM Document 74 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A person shall not make or begin any excavation in any public street, alley, 

right-of-way dedicated to the public use or public utility easement or in 

any express or implied private property utility easement or in any 

apartment community or mobile home park without first determining 

whether underground facilities will be encountered, and if so where they 

are located from each and every underground facilities operator and taking 

measures for control of the facilities in a careful and prudent manner. For 

all excavations in an apartment community or mobile home park, the 

excavator shall inform the landlord as promptly as practical that the 

excavator intends to submit an inquiry to the landlord that will trigger the 

landlord's obligations provided by subsection B of this section and the 

inquiry itself shall be made by certified mail to the landlord, using a form 

prepared by a one-call notification center. The inquiry to a landlord may 

be made by a one-call notification center for a reasonable fee to the 

excavator.

A.R.S. § 40-360.22(A). The Act further provides:

If any underground facility is damaged by any person in violation of this 

article as a result of failing to obtain information as to its location, failing to 

take measures for protection of the facilities or failing to excavate in a careful 

and prudent manner, the person is liable to the owner of the underground 

facility for the total cost of the repair of the facility.

A.R.S. § 40-360.26(A). Arizona law sets a one (1) year statute of limitations for all 

actions “[u]pon a liability created by statute[.]” A.R.S. § 12-541(5). Defendant asserts 

that “Arizona courts have held that duties of care arising out of statute do, indeed, 

constitute ‘liability created by statute.’” Def.’s Mot. in limine (Doc. 68) at 3 (citing 

Jackson v. Pima County, 767 P.2d 54, 55–56 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988)). In Jackson, 

however, “[t]he duty to approve plans and issue permits was created by the ordinance and 

not common law.” Jackson, 767 P.2d at 56. Here, Plaintiff’s negligence claim arises 

from common law.

In the context of the Arizona Damages Protection Act (“ADPA”), another District 

of Arizona court has observed that “[a]lthough Arizona courts originally construed the 

phrase ‘liability created by statute’ narrowly, . . . more recent cases have held that ‘[w]hen 

either a common law or statutory cause of action may be maintained, and the elements of 

the common law cause of action are different than the elements of the statutory cause of 

Case 4:18-cv-00274-BGM Document 74 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

action different limitations statutes apply to each.’” MCI Comm. Svcs. v. Contractors West 

Inc., 2016 WL 795861, *2 (D. Ariz. March 1, 2016) (quoting Alaface v. Nat’l Inv. Co., 181 

Ariz. 586, 598, 892 P.2d 1375, 1387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994)) (alterations in original). The 

MCI Communications court concluded that “[t]he ADPA dispenses with elements of its 

common law precursors: in contrast to a negligence claim, an ADPA claim need not allege 

fault, and in contrast to a trespass claim, an ADPA claim need not establish that the 

excavator’s interference with the damaged infrastructure was knowing and intentional.” 

Id. at 3 (citing A.R.S. § 40-360.26(A); then citing A.R.S. § 40-360.28(B)).

Defendant FNF acknowledges that Plaintiff’s negligence claim is not time-barred; 

however, asserts that Plaintiff is still “seeking to impose statutory liability onto FNF but is 

styling it as negligence.” Def.’s Mot. in limine (Doc. 68) at 3. Defendant FNF further 

asserts that Plaintiff “has made several arguments and elicited testimony concerning what 

is excavation under the AUFA, what damages it is entitled to, and FNF’s liability.” Id. at 

5. Plaintiff counters that reference to “careful and prudent” or “carefully” as required in 

the statute are the negligence standard. Pl.’s Response (Doc. 70) at 4–5. “In the ordinary

[Arizona] negligence action, the standard imposed is that of the conduct of a reasonably

prudent man under the circumstances.” Bell v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 157 Ariz. 192, 194, 

755 P.2d 1180, 1182 (Ct. App. 1988) (citations omitted). On summary judgment in another 

case involving the severance of a fiber optic cable, the court considered the appropriate 

common law negligence standard of care as follows:

At common law, excavators have a duty to inform themselves of the 

location of underground facilities and to take precautions necessary to 

avoid those facilities. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Kelton, 79 Ariz. 

126, 285 P.2d 168 (1955) (citing Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Chas. Ind. Co., 3 

Ill.App.2d 258, 121 N.E.2d 600 (1954); GTE north, Inc. v. Carr, 84 Ohio 

App.3d 776, 618 N.E.2d 249, 252 (1993); South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. 

Sewage & Water Bd., 652 So.2d 1090, 1093 (La.App.1995)).

* * *

Similarly, “industry standards can be helpful in establishing the 

appropriate standard of care.” Nikolov v. Associated Envtl. Servs., 52 

Fed.Appx. 975, 977 (9th Cir.2002); see also Southwest Auto Painting and 

Case 4:18-cv-00274-BGM Document 74 Filed 11/26/19 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld, 183 Ariz. 444, 904 P.2d 1268, 1272 

(Ariz.App.1995) (holding “when a person holds himself out to the public 

as possessing special knowledge, skill, or expertise, he must perform 

according to the standard of his profession.”). The Telecommunications 

Industry Association's “Standard for Physical Location and Protection of 

Below–Ground Fiber–Optic Cable Plant” provides that an excavator 

should “Provide notice of excavation to all utility owners or to the One–

Call notification center” prior to the beginning of any excavation and 

“[p]rotect and preserve the temporary marking or staking placed by the 

owner to indicate the location of underground facilities until such 

markings are no longer needed for safe excavation near the underground 

facility.” CNA Insurance Company's Minimum Damage Prevention 

Guidelines state that excavators should “[i]nspect the area of proposed 

excavation to ensure that all utilities have been marked” and “[i]f there are 

no locates, or if the locates are incomplete, or if exposing indicates the 

locate marks are not accurate, [the excavator should] not dig, but rather 

contact the facility owner or the One–Call center.” See CNA Standards at 

pp. 1–5, Plaintiff's Exhibit 25. Similarly, U.S. Department of 

Transportation's Best Practice for avoiding damage to underground 

facilities during excavation includes: “Prior to excavating, verify that all 

utilities have been marked and inspect the area for indications of any 

unmarked facilities.”

Accordingly, the standard of care for excavating in the area of 

utilities includes: making affirmative efforts to discover the location of all 

underground facilities in advance; notifying the utility owner and/or the 

One–Call Center (here Blue Stake) of the excavation in advance; ensuring 

that locate marks are present and preserving them as needed, and; using 

non-invasive means such as excavation by hand in the vicinity of the 

facility.

Sprint Commc'ns Co., L.P. v. W. Innovations, Inc., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1111–12 (D. 

Ariz.), on reconsideration in part, No. CV-06-2064-PHX-ROS, 2009 WL 1458467 (D. 

Ariz. May 21, 2009), and supplemented sub nom. Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. W. Innovations, 

Inc., 618 F.Supp.2d 1124 (D. Ariz. 2009). Defendant “FNF asserts the appropriate 

common law standard of care was explained in Sprint Commcn’s, L.P.” Joint Pretrial Order 

(Doc. 69) at 7. The Parties agree that Defendant FNF “was moving dirt near the damage 

location when it struck the fiber underground optic cable.” Id. at 6 ¶ 6.

The Court finds citation to the AUFA is inappropriate. The Court further finds that 

Case 4:18-cv-00274-BGM Document 74 Filed 11/26/19 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the standard of care as delineated by the Sprint Communications court is appropriate for 

use in this matter. “Accordingly, the standard of care for excavating in the area of utilities 

includes: making affirmative efforts to discover the location of all underground facilities 

in advance; notifying the utility owner and/or the One–Call Center (here Blue Stake) of the 

excavation in advance; ensuring that locate marks are present and preserving them as 

needed[;] and[] using non-invasive means such as excavation by hand in the vicinity of the 

facility.” Sprint Commc'ns Co., L.P. v. W. Innovations, Inc., 618 F.Supp.2d at 1112.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in limine (Doc. 68) is 

GRANTED.

Dated this 26th day of November, 2019.

Case 4:18-cv-00274-BGM Document 74 Filed 11/26/19 Page 5 of 5