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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

MEGAN CAUGHLIN, a single woman, individually and on behalf of 

statutory beneficiaries ALLICIA CAUGHLIN, VINCENT LAPOINTE and 

JANICE LAPOINTE, the natural children and parents of STEPHANIE 

JEAN CRISTIANI, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ARIZONA, a governmental entity, Defendant/Appellee. 

No. 1 CA-CV 14-0757 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CV2014-006634 

The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

COUNSEL 

Law Office of Scott E. Boehm, P.C., Phoenix 

By Scott E. Boehm 

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant 

Breyer Law Offices, P.C., Phoenix 

By Mark P. Breyer and Brian C. Fawber 

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Fred M. Zeder and Brock J. Heathcotte 

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
CAUGHLIN v. STATE 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Presiding Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined. 

K E S S L E R, Judge: 

¶1 Megan Caughlin appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her 

wrongful death action for failure to comply with the notice of claim statute. 

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-612(A) (Supp. 2015), -821.01(A) (Supp. 

2015).1 For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order 

dismissing her complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 In May 2013, Stephanie Cristiani was driving on Interstate 17 

when her front tire failed, causing her to collide with an adjacent light pole. 

Cristiani died at the scene of the accident from multiple blunt force head 

traumas. 

¶3 Caughlin, Cristiani’s daughter, served four copies of the 

notice of claim on the State within 180 days of the accident pursuant to 

A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).2 The notice of claim described the accident in detail 

and the basis of the State’s alleged liability. The notice of claim also 

identified all four of the wrongful death beneficiaries as “claimants,”3 and 

specified that “a sum certain demand [was] being made against the State of 

Arizona for $4,000,000.” 

¶4 The State filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Caughlin 

failed to comply with the notice of claim statute by bundling the claims into 

one conditional offer to settle. Although both Caughlin and the State were 

 

1 We cite the current version of applicable statutes because no revisions 

material to this decision have since occurred. 

2 Caughlin also served copies of the notice of claim on Maricopa County 

and the City of Phoenix, but later dismissed those entities from this action 

when it was determined that the State was responsible for the light pole. 

3 The four statutory beneficiaries include Cristiani’s parents, Janice and 

Vincent LaPointe, and her two children, Megan and Allicia Caughlin. 
CAUGHLIN v. STATE 

Decision of the Court 

3

clear below that the sum certain was for $4,000,000 total, because Caughlin 

asserted an alternative argument that the court could find that the statutory 

beneficiaries served the State separately for $4,000,000 each, the court 

granted the motion to dismiss finding the sum certain was ambiguous. As 

to the bundling argument, the court stated that plaintiffs’ argument that 

naming four statutory beneficiaries with only one monetary demand was 

proper “conflates the requirements for a wrongful death lawsuit and a 

proper notice of claim.”

¶5 Caughlin timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) (Supp. 2015). 

DISCUSSION 

¶6 “Before initiating an action for damages against a public 

entity, a claimant must provide a notice of claim to the entity in compliance 

with [A.R.S. § 12-821.01].” Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 

Ariz. 293, 294, ¶ 1 (2007). “The claim shall contain facts sufficient to permit 

the public entity . . . to understand the basis on which liability is claimed. 

The claim shall also contain a specific amount for which the claim can be 

settled and the facts supporting that amount.” A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). These 

statutory requirements “allow the public entity to investigate and assess 

liability, . . . permit the possibility of settlement prior to litigation, and . . . 

assist the public entity in financial planning and budgeting.” Deer Valley, 

214 Ariz. at 295, ¶ 6 (citations omitted). Claims that fail to comply with 

A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) are statutorily barred. Id. To comply with the statute, 

the specific settlement amount has to be a sum certain which, if accepted by 

the State, will settle the matter. Id. at 296, ¶ 9. 

¶7 When a motion to dismiss attaches a notice of claim, the 

motion should be considered as one for summary judgment unless it is clear 

the court did not consider the notice or the notice was attached to the 

complaint. Vasquez v. State, 220 Ariz. 304, 308, ¶ 8 (App. 2008). We review 

summary judgments de novo. Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 220 

Ariz. 214, 223, ¶ 27 (App. 2008). 
CAUGHLIN v. STATE 

Decision of the Court 

4

I. The notice of claim’s sum certain demand was clear and 

unambiguous. 

¶8 Caughlin contends that the notice of claim is unambiguous 

and provides that the wrongful death action could be settled by the State 

for a sum certain amount of $4,000,000.4 We agree. 

¶9 The notice of claim lists all four statutory beneficiaries on the 

first page and then states that “a sum certain demand is being made against 

the State of Arizona for $4,000,000.” To drive that clarity home, the notice 

of claim also references the statutory requirement, and notes that the 

requirement is satisfied: “The Notice of Claim statute requires sum certain, 

so such is being demanded.” It also reinforced the nature of the sum certain 

as being for all four claimants by noting that “[b]y the time of trial, the 

plaintiffs will have access to information currently in the possession of these 

or other defendants . . . .” The notice also discussed all four claimants’ 

relationship with Stephanie Cristiani and how close they were to her and 

their suffering from her death. Thus, as argued by Caughlin in the trial 

court, there was only one claim for $4,000,000 representing the claim by all 

the wrongful death statutory beneficiaries. 

¶10 There is nothing ambiguous about the sum certain 

demanded. On appeal, the State contends that the service of four copies of 

the notice of claim on the State somehow transformed the notice into four 

separate claims or at least could confuse the State into believing that. 

However, the State conceded in the trial court that it understood the offer 

was a single offer for the entire claim for $4,000,000. Accordingly, it cannot 

successfully argue on appeal that it was confused by the multiple service of 

the notice on various agencies of the State. 

¶11 Moreover, while the arguments in the trial court could have 

confused the court that it was possible there was an ambiguity in the 

settlement amount, we look to the face of the notice of claim. That notice is 

clear that all four claimants in the wrongful death action were offering to 

settle the single claim against the State for $4,000,000. Accordingly, the trial 

court erred in finding the notice of claim to be unclear and ambiguous. 

 

4 We reject the State’s contention that Caughlin failed to address the alleged 

ambiguity of the sum certain. Caughlin’s argument expressly contends that 

the notice of claim complied with A.R.S. § 12-821.01 by including a sum 

certain demand for an unequivocal $4,000,000. 
CAUGHLIN v. STATE 

Decision of the Court 

5

II. The State has abandoned its apportionment argument. 

¶12 Caughlin also addressed the apportionment argument in her 

opening brief. The State did not address that argument in its answering 

brief. “Failure to respond in an answering brief to a debatable issue 

constitutes confession of error.” Chalpin v. Snyder, 220 Ariz. 413, 423 n.7, ¶ 

40 (App. 2008). Moreover, when asked by this Court at oral argument 

whether it had waived the apportionment/bundling argument, the State 

conceded that bundling was not before this Court, it had waived the issue 

on appeal, and in its view a bundled claim is not prohibited by the statute. 

Accordingly, the State has affirmatively waived and abandoned any further 

contentions in this case that the notice of claim was insufficient related to 

bundling. We render no opinion on the propriety of a bundled claim. 

CONCLUSION 

¶13 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order 

granting the State’s motion to dismiss. The complaint was not barred by 

the notice of claim statute. We remand for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision. We also award Caughlin her taxable costs on appeal 

upon timely compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 

21.