IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

BILL AND SUE BEVERAGE, HUSBAND AND WIFE,

Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC; D. ROBERT MORRIS, AN INDIVIDUAL

Defendants/Appellees.

No. CV-13-0170-PR

Filed January 24, 2014

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

The Honorable Colleen L. French, Judge

No. CV2011-091442

REVERSED

Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Division One

232 Ariz. 414, 306 P.3d 71 (2013)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL:

Leo R. Beus (argued), A. Erin McGuinness, and Abigail M. Terhune, Beus 

Gilbert, P.L.L.C., Phoenix, for Bill and Sue Beverage

Don P. Martin (argued) and Michael S. Catlett, Quarles & Brady, L.L.P.,

Phoenix, for Pullman & Comley, L.L.C., and D. Robert Morris

Andrew J. Petersen, Humphrey & Petersen, P.C., Tucson, for Amicus

Arizona Association of Defense Counsel

Stanley G. Feldman, Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, P.L.C.,

Tucson, and David L. Abney, Knapp & Roberts, P.C., Scottsdale, for Amici

Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers Association
BEVERAGE V. PULLMAN

Opinion of the Court

2

CHIEF JUSTICE BERCH authored the opinion of the Court, in which VICE 

CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, JUSTICE PELANDER, JUSTICE BRUTINEL, and 

JUSTICE TIMMER joined.

CHIEF JUSTICE BERCH, opinion of the Court:

¶1 This Court granted review to determine whether the court of 

appeals erred in concluding that Arizona courts have specific jurisdiction 

over a Connecticut lawyer and law firm retained by Arizona residents to 

provide an opinion letter regarding a tax-shelter transaction.

¶2 After considering the briefs and oral arguments, we 

conclude that the court of appeals did not err and that Arizona courts 

have jurisdiction over the defendants in this case. That court’s opinion

respected Arizona’s rule permitting the liberal exercise of personal 

jurisdiction, see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a) (granting extraterritorial jurisdiction 

“to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of this state and 

the Constitution of the United States”), properly extrapolated from this 

Court’s opinion in Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews 

Mineral Properties, Ltd., 226 Ariz. 262, 268 ¶ 25, 270 ¶ 37, 246 P.3d 343, 349, 

351 (2011), and otherwise applied the proper tests and analyzed relevant 

authorities. See Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, 232 Ariz. 414, 416-21 ¶¶ 3-

28, 306 P.3d 71, 73-78 (App. 2013).

¶3 We offer one minor clarification. The court of appeals 

observed that the Pullman defendants “sought Arizona-specific 

information” and “used these pieces of Arizona-based information to craft 

an opinion letter.” Id. at 420 ¶ 22, 306 P.3d at 77. These contacts are more 

precisely termed “Arizona-client-specific contacts” because they relate not 

to Arizona, but rather to the Beverages, who were at all relevant times 

Arizona residents. For example, the tax opinion letter included 

information about the parties and entities involved in the Beverages’ taxshelter transaction, the amounts loaned and the terms of repayment, and 

the Beverages’ reason for entering into the transaction. Although this

information is better characterized as “Arizona-client-specific” than 

“Arizona-specific,” that minor clarification does not alter our conclusion

that the court of appeals properly analyzed the defendants’ Arizona 

contacts.

¶4 Because we agree with the court of appeals’ jurisdictional 

analysis, we affirm the opinion of the court of appeals, as clarified.