Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01437/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01437-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

Kevin D. Rexroad, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Volvo Truck Corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1437-PHX-JAT

No. CV 06-1714-PHX-JAT

(Consolidated)

ORDER

These consolidated wrongful-death actions arise out of a single-vehicle accident

that resulted in the death of Alicia Marie Rexroad. Defendants maintain that Arizona law

permits only one statutory plaintiff to present evidence on the issue of liability in a

wrongful-death action, and have moved this Court to determine the proper statutory

plaintiff in this case. Because the interests of the multiple plaintiffs in these cases

conflict, the Court will deny Defendants' motion.

I. Background

On May 21, 2004, a vehicle driven by Plaintiff Kevin Rexroad veered off the road,

crashed through a guardrail, and burst into flames. Rexroad's wife, Alicia, who was

riding as a passenger in the vehicle, died in the crash. On April 27, 2006, Rexroad, acting

in his individual capacity and in his capacity as personal representative of the decedent's

estate, filed a wrongful-death action against Defendants based on negligence and strict

liability. On May 17, 2006, the decedent's surviving parents, the Mercers, filed a separate

Case 2:06-cv-01437-JAT Document 50 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 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

1

 Defendants contend that there is no conflict-of-interest exception to the one-plaintiff

rule under Arizona law. They argue that the wrongful-death cases that have discussed

conflicting interests have done so in the damages context, and that these cases should be

limited to their facts. As the Arizona Supreme Court stated in Nunez v. Nunez, 545 P.2d 69,

74 (Ariz. 1976), however, "it would be contrary to the Code of Professional Responsibility

to require a lawyer to represent multiple beneficiaries with differing interests." This principle

applies with equal force to all facets of litigation, as the Arizona Court of Appeals later

recognized. See Williams, 820 P.2d 332, 333-334 (stating that statutory beneficiaries have

"a right to participate in all facets of . . . litigation relating to damages . . . and where the

interests of the beneficiaries conflict").

- 2 -

wrongful-death action against Defendants based on negligence and strict liability. By

order dated November 3, 2006, the Court consolidated these two cases.

Also pending in Arizona state court is a wrongful-death action filed by the Mercers

against Rexroad and his employer. In that lawsuit, the Mercers allege that Rexroad

negligently caused their daughter's death.

II. Discussion

In Arizona, although multiple statutory beneficiaries may exist, "[a] wrongful

death action . . . is one action for damages with one plaintiff and one judgment." Begay v.

City of Tucson, 715 P.2d 758, 761 (Ariz. 1986); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-612. There

are, however, two exceptions to this one-plaintiff rule: (1) all statutory beneficiaries have

the right to participate in the damages portion of the litigation; and (2) all statutory

beneficiaries have the right to participate in any other facet of the litigation where the

interests of the beneficiaries conflict.1

 Williams v. Superior Court, 820 P.2d 332, 333-34

(Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). In light of the negligence claim asserted by the Mercers against

Rexroad in state court, the Court finds that the interests of the Mercers and of Rexroad

conflict in these consolidated actions.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Limit the Number of Statutory

Plaintiffs to One (Doc. # 32) is denied.

Case 2:06-cv-01437-JAT Document 50 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

DATED this 10th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01437-JAT Document 50 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 3