NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas corporation, 

Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

VALLEY SPRINGS ESTATES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company;

JAMES LEO CROWLEY; LJC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, an Arizona limited 

liability company; and CEDAR RIDGE INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company, Defendants/Appellants.

No. 1 CA-CV 16-0096

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CV201300153

The Honorable Jacqueline Hatch, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, L.L.P., Phoenix

By Matthew H. Sloan, Robert J. Lamb

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

Aspey, Watkins & Diesel, P.L.L.C., Flagstaff

By Whitney Cunningham, Colleen Maring, Kathryn G. Mahady

Counsel for Defendants/Appellants
LEXON v. VALLEY SPRINGS et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Valley Springs Estates, LLC (Valley Springs), James Leo 

Crowley, LJC Development, LLC (LJC), and Cedar Ridge Investments, LLC

(Cedar Ridge) (appellants) appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor 

of appellee Lexon Insurance Company (Lexon) after a jury trial, and from 

the court’s denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law. For the 

following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Appellants are real estate developers and investors. 

Sometime in 2006 or 2007, appellants decided to develop two residential 

subdivisions--Valley Springs in Mohave County and Cedar Ridge in the 

City of Flagstaff. In 2007, appellants asked Mahoney Group Insurance 

Agency (Mahoney Group) to find a surety to provide subdivision 

performance bonds for both projects. Mahoney Group took the bonds to 

Lexon, and Lexon agreed to issue the bonds. 

¶3 In March 2007, appellants signed a general agreement of 

indemnity (GAI) for Valley Springs, and in July 2007 appellants signed a 

GAI for Cedar Ridge. Both GAIs contained the following provision:

The indemnitors will pay to [Lexon] . . . 

premiums and charges at the rates, and at the 

times specified in respect to each such bond in 

[Lexon’s] schedule of rates, which, with any 

additions, or amendments thereto, is by 

reference made a part hereof, and will continue 

to pay the same where such premium is annual, 

until the Company shall be discharged and 

released from any and all liability and 

responsibility upon and from each such bond or 

matters arising therefrom . . . .

Lexon’s schedule of rates provided, in relevant part:
LEXON v. VALLEY SPRINGS et al.

Decision of the Court

3

G. Subdivision Bonds

Specialty Rates: Rate per M

$24.00/M/Annum of cost of improvements or bond penalty

$48.00/M/Biennium of cost of improvements or bond 

penalty

1. The above rates are charged on the cost of improvements 

or bond penalty, whichever is higher.

2. Premium is charged on an annual basis. Premium is 

considered fully earned in the initial term. Renewals will 

be charged at the same rates on the remaining Bond 

Penalty if reduced by the Obligee and fully earned in the 

first renewal term. Pro-rated return premiums will be 

issued if the work is completed in the second renewal 

term, subject to the minimum annual earned premium, 

and the Surety has been released of liability by the 

Obligee.[1]

The performance bond for Valley Springs was in the amount (or penal sum) 

of $2,525,105.66 and the performance bond for Cedar Ridge was in the 

amount of $971,463.60. Appellants paid a two percent premium for each 

bond at the time they were issued.

2 The premium for the Valley Springs 

bond was $50,502 and the premium for the Cedar Ridge bond was $19,429. 

Mahoney Group received a commission equal to twenty-five percent of 

each premium. 

 

1 In this case Mohave County and City of Flagstaff are the obligees and 

Lexon is the surety. The only obligation an obligee has under a subdivision 

bond is to release and discharge the bond after work is finished.

2 Lexon’s underwriter, Gregory Semrow, testified that he used Lexon’s 

schedule of rates and decided that appellants would pay Lexon’s specialty 

rate for subdivision bonds because appellants did not have an established 

relationship with Lexon, but that he discounted the specialty rate to 2 

percent of the bond penalty instead of 2.4 percent ($20 per thousand dollars 

per year) because appellants’ financial statements were favorable and 

Lexon’s risk was therefore lower.
LEXON v. VALLEY SPRINGS et al.

Decision of the Court

4

¶4 Neither project was completed within a year. Because some 

work had been completed at Valley Springs, appellants successfully got 

Mohave County to reduce the amount of the Valley Springs bond to 

$1,984,230.82, and Lexon issued an amended bond. Mahoney Group sent 

an invoice to appellants for a second annual premium on the Valley Springs 

bond for $39,685, a reduced amount in accordance with the lowered bond 

amount. Appellants paid that amount in June 2008. Appellants paid a 

second two percent premium of $19,429 on the Cedar Ridge bond in August 

2008.

¶5 After 2008, appellants stopped paying annual premiums to 

Lexon for either project.

3 Lexon remained liable on the bonds, which 

continued to “auto-renew” annually.4 The Cedar Ridge project was not 

completed until 2014. In September 2014, the City of Flagstaff released 

Lexon from liability under the bond. At the time of trial, Valley Springs 

had not been completed.

¶6 In February 2013, Lexon filed a complaint in superior court 

seeking contract damages from appellants5 for the unpaid premiums and 

attorneys’ fees. Lexon filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2014. 

Appellants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, and the trial court 

denied both motions, finding there were genuine issues of material fact. In 

October 2014, appellants filed an amended answer and counterclaim 

seeking a refund of the premiums they paid Lexon in 2008. Appellants filed 

another motion for summary judgment in May 2015. Lexon filed a crossmotion for summary judgment. After oral argument, the court denied both 

motions for summary judgment. The court found there were genuine 

issues of material fact and that the terms of the contract were ambiguous.

 

3 In 2009, Lexon took over the Valley Springs and Cedar Ridge accounts

from Mahoney Group and began attempting to collect its renewal 

premiums.

4 A subdivision bond cannot lapse and remains in effect until the obligee 

(here Mohave County or City of Flagstaff) releases it. 

5 Lexon also sued other indemnitors who have since been dismissed from 

the case. 
LEXON v. VALLEY SPRINGS et al.

Decision of the Court

5

¶7 After a four-day jury trial6, the jury found in favor of Lexon 

on all counts and in favor of Lexon on appellants’ counterclaim, and 

awarded Lexon $297,274.32. Appellants filed motions for a new trial and 

for judgment as a matter of law, which the trial court denied. The court 

entered a final judgment in favor of Lexon in May 2016. Appellants timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statues 

(A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016), -2101(A)(1) (2016).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Appellants raise three issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial 

court erred by refusing to grant their motion for judgment as a matter of 

law following the jury’s verdict in favor of Lexon; 2) whether the trial court 

abused its discretion by permitting Lexon to admit into evidence the 

schedule of rates it disclosed seven months before trial but subsequent to 

the parties’ discovery deadline; and 3) whether the trial court abused its 

discretion by allowing Lexon to present improper expert opinion 

testimony.

A. Denial of Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

¶9 Appellants first argue that the trial court erred by refusing to 

grant them judgment as a matter of law following the jury’s verdict. (OB at 

34). “We review de novo whether a trial court should have granted a 

judgment as a matter of law.” A Tumbling -T Ranches v. Flood Control Dist. 

of Maricopa Cty., 222 Ariz. 515, 524, ¶ 14, 217 P.3d 1220, 1229 (App. 2009) 

(citations omitted). “A motion for [judgment as a matter of law] should be 

granted ‘if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so 

little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that 

reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the 

proponent of the claim or defense.’” Id. (quoting Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 

Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990)). We “view ‘the evidence in a light 

most favorable to upholding the jury verdict’ and will affirm ‘if any 

substantial evidence exists permitting reasonable person to reach such a 

result.’” Id. (quoting Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 51, 53, ¶ 13, 961 

P.2d 449, 451 (1998)). ‘[T]he interpretation of a contract is a question of law 

or at most, a mixed question of law and fact . . . .” United Cal. Bank v. 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 140 Ariz. 238, 257, 681 P.2d 390, 409 (App. 1983).

 

6 The sole issue before the jury was whether premiums on the bonds were 

due annually.
LEXON v. VALLEY SPRINGS et al.

Decision of the Court

6

¶10 Appellants argue that the schedule of rates was not and could 

not have been incorporated by reference into the parties’ contract. To 

incorporate a document into a contract by reference, “[t]he reference must 

be clear and unequivocal and must be called to the attention of the other 

party, he must consent hereto, and the terms of the incorporated document 

must be known or easily available to the contracting parties. . . .” Id. at 268, 

681 P.2d at 420 (citing 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 299 at 136 (1963)) (emphasis 

added). Although it is not necessary that a contract specifically state that 

another document is “’incorporated by this reference herein,’ the context in 

which the reference is made must make clear that the writing is part of the 

contract.” Id. Physical attachment of the document is not necessary. 

Weatherguard Roofing Co., v. D.R. Ward Const. Co., 214 Ariz. 344, 347, ¶ 10, 

152 P.3d 1227, 1230 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

¶11 Appellants agree that the GAIs’ references to Lexon’s 

schedule of rates are clear and unequivocal. However, they argue that 1) 

they could not have consented to the terms of the schedule of rates because 

the schedule of rates was not “known and easily available” to them, and 2) 

the reference to the schedule of rates was never called to their attention. 

Thus, appellants argue, no substantial evidence “would permit any 

reasonable person to find . . . three of the four elements required for the 

(schedule of rates) to have been incorporated by reference.”

¶12 We disagree. Appellants agreed to be bound by the terms of 

the GAIs, which clearly stated that appellants would pay Lexon “premiums 

and charges at the rates, and at the times specified in respect to each such 

bond in [Lexon’s] schedule of rates, which, with any additions, or 

amendments thereto, is by reference made a part hereof. . ..” LJC’s owner, 

John Crowley, testified that he reviewed the GAIs before signing them and 

was aware that they referenced a schedule of rates.7 David Hickman at 

Mahoney Group testified that Lexon quoted a premium rate of two percent 

per year for the two subdivision bonds and that he orally communicated 

Lexon’s premiums to John Crowley. Gregory Semrow, Lexon’s 

underwriter, testified that he set the premiums at two percent per year, he 

communicated the premiums to Mahoney Group, and that no one ever 

asked him to provide the schedule of rates. Thus, there was substantial 

evidence that the terms of the schedule of rates were communicated to 

appellants, or easily available to them at the time they entered into the 

 

7 Crowley testified that he asked David Hickman for a copy of the schedule 

of rates but was not provided with a copy. He also testified that he was not 

aware the premiums would be charged annually, even though, as noted 

supra, he paid second annual premiums on both bonds.
LEXON v. VALLEY SPRINGS et al.

Decision of the Court

7

contract with Lexon. See Weatherguard, 214 Ariz. at 346, ¶ 8, 152 P.3d at 

1229.

¶13 Because sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict, the 

trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motion for judgment as a 

matter of law.

B. Admission of the Schedule of Rates into Evidence

¶14 In June 2015, Lexon’s attorneys found a document entitled 

“schedule of rates” and disclosed the document to appellants in its third 

supplemental disclosure statement. The disclosure was made after the 

parties’ agreed-upon April 30, 2015 discovery deadline. Appellants filed a 

motion to strike the disclosure. The trial court denied the motion to strike, 

noting that there was “no evidence that [Lexon] intentionally held back the 

‘rate schedule,’” and that “[b]oth sides have a duty to continue to disclose.” 

Appellants did not seek to conduct any additional discovery. In November 

2015, appellants filed a motion in limine requesting that the schedule of 

rates be excluded, and the trial court denied the motion in limine. 

¶15 We review the trial court’s rulings on discovery and 

disclosure matters for an abuse of discretion. Preston v. Amadei, 238 Ariz. 

124, 130, ¶ 15, 357 P.3d 159, 165 (App. 2015) (citation omitted). Appellants 

argue that 1) Lexon never sought leave of the court by motion and 

supporting affidavit as required by Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(2) 

(Rule 37(c)(2)) to extend its time for disclosure, and 2) Rule 37(c) required 

exclusion of the schedule of rates because the untimely disclosure was 

neither harmless nor supported by good cause.

¶16 The applicable version of Rule 37(c)8 provides, in relevant 

part:

(1) A party who fails to timely disclose 

information required by Rule 26.1 shall not, 

unless such failure is harmless, be permitted 

to use as evidence at trial . . . the information 

or witness not disclosed, except by leave of 

court for good cause shown.

 

8 In their opening brief appellants cite a version of Rule 37 that was not in 

effect at the time this action was filed; however, they concede in their reply 

brief that the applicable version of Rule 37 is the version cited by Lexon, 

which was in effect until April 15, 2014. 
LEXON v. VALLEY SPRINGS et al.

Decision of the Court

8

. . . . 

(2) A party seeking to use information which 

the party first disclosed later than sixty (60) 

days before trial must obtain leave of court 

by motion, supported by affidavit, to extend 

the time for disclosure. Such information 

shall not be used unless the motion 

establishes and the court finds:

(i) that the information would be 

allowed under the standards of 

subsection (c)(1) notwithstanding the 

short time remaining before trial; and

(ii) that the information was disclosed as 

soon as practicable after its discovery.

Under this version of the Rule, leave from the trial court is not required if a 

disclosure is made after a disclosure deadline so long as the disclosure is 

made more than sixty days before trial. The disclosure here was made more 

than seven months before trial. Thus, leave from the court was not required 

and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the schedule of 

rates.

C. Alleged Improper Expert Opinion Testimony

¶17 Finally, appellants argue that the trial court erred by allowing 

Lexon to offer undisclosed expert opinion testimony about the industry 

standard regarding frequency of premiums on subdivision bonds through 

its lay witnesses, and by allowing Lexon to comment on the testimony 

during closing argument. We review the trial court’s decision to admit lay 

witness opinion testimony for an abuse of discretion. Lewis v. N.J. Riebe

Entrs., 170 Ariz. 384, 396, 825 P.2d 5, 17 (1992).

¶18 At trial, appellants objected to Lexon’s witnesses testifying 

about an industry standard regarding the frequency of subdivision bond 

premiums (both during Lexon’s direct examination of those witnesses and 

in the context of several jury questions), on the ground that the witnesses 

had not been disclosed as expert witnesses. The trial court ruled that Lexon 

would not be permitted to elicit testimony about industry standards. The 

court, however, permitted Lexon to elicit testimony from its witnesses 

Dawn Fykes, Gregory Semrow, and Michael Belinski, about their firsthand 

experience with subdivision bond premiums. Fykes, a Mahoney Group 
LEXON v. VALLEY SPRINGS et al.

Decision of the Court

9

employee with experience procuring subdivision bonds, testified that she 

never procured a subdivision bond for John Crowley, or for anyone else, 

that did not have annual premiums. Semrow, the underwriting vice 

president of Lexon who worked with Mahoney Group on the Valley 

Springs and Cedar Ridge bonds, testified that he underwrote tens of 

thousands of subdivision bonds during his career and none had premiums 

that were other than annual or bi-annual. Belinski testified that in his 

experience as Lexon’s collections attorney, he never saw an instance where 

Lexon did not charge a subdivision bond annually. In its closing argument, 

Lexon argued that other GAIs appellants had entered into for bonds 

procured by Mahoney Group contained language similar to the Lexon GAIs

“[b]ecause that language, that type of agreement is what’s typical in the 

surety industry.” Counsel further argued that Lexon’s witnesses “all 

testif[ied] that premiums due on subdivision bonds are always, always due 

annually.” Appellants made no objections during Lexon’s closing 

argument.

¶19 Arizona Rule of Evidence 701 provides:

Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, 

testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to 

one that is:

(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;

(b) helpful to clearly understanding the 

witness’s testimony or to determining a fact 

in issue; and

(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other 

specialized knowledge within the scope of 

Rule 702.

We find no abuse of discretion. Lexon’s lay witnesses, who all had years of 

experience with subdivision bonds, gave testimony rationally based on 

their own experience with subdivision bonds, and the testimony was 

helpful to determining the facts of the case. Furthermore, appellants 

waived their argument concerning Lexon’s closing argument by failing to 

make a timely objection below. See Martinez v. Jordan, 27 Ariz. App. 254, 

256, 553 P.2d 1239, 1241 (1976) (citing Tryon v. Naegle, 20 Ariz. App. 138, 510 

P.2d 768 (1973)).
LEXON v. VALLEY SPRINGS et al.

Decision of the Court

10

D. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

¶20 Both sides request their attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 (2016). We award Lexon reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs upon compliance with ARCAP 21.

CONCLUSION

¶21 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment in favor of 

Lexon.