Source: http://www.omlaw.com/azapp-blog/postings/2015/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:17:26+00:00

Document:
Arizona Supreme Court holds that, under A.R.S. § 28-8424, a non-profit corporation that leases airport property is not an agent of the county in which the airport resides.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that the statute of limitations for Lanham Act claims in Arizona is three years.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that in reviewing a disciplinary action against a law enforcement officer, the employer may modify or reverse a decision of the Arizona State Personnel Board only if it finds that the decision is arbitrary and capricious and explains this finding in writing.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that the Department of Child Safety owes no civil duty of care to grandparents who wish to have dependent grandchildren placed in their care.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act provides an affirmative defense but not immunity against prosecution under the DUI statute A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3).
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a school district’s authority to condemn property for use as buildings or grounds pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1111(3) includes the power to condemn property to create access to those buildings and grounds.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One declines to adopt Restatement and holds that landlord does not owe duty of care to worker invited onto property by landlord’s lender without landlord’s knowledge.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that under ARCAP Rule 21, as in effect in 2012, a claim for attorneys’ fees incurred pre-appeal and on appeal must be made in the appeal briefing or in a motion before oral argument.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that investors may not obtain a constructive trust on life insurance proceeds when the insured paid for insurance policy with funds from an illegal enterprise.
The Commission on Appellate Court Appointments has recommended seven nominees to Governor Doug Ducey for an opening on the Arizona Supreme Court.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that employment is not “seasonal” if the employee is willing to work but the failure to work is attributable to the employer’s decisions.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a construction financing agreement is a binding commitment and not just a guideline for future financing at the lender’s discretion where the agreement’s express terms obligate the lender to make loans to the borrower.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that Arizona Department of Water Resources may deny an application to sever and transfer a water right only for the reasons provided in A.R.S. § 45-172(A), the statute governing transfer of water rights.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that under the statutes defining debt management companies: (1) “receiving money” includes constructive receipt where the company exercises substantial control over clients funds; and (2) the company does not have to actually disburse money to creditors, it only has to receive money for that purpose.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that evidence that a government official acted with spite or ill will is not sufficient to defeat qualified immunity.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that (1) a city council’s approval of a settlement agreement to resolve pending litigation and (2) a city resolution that merely expresses support on a given issue are not legislative acts subject to referendum.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a plaintiff does not impliedly waive the mediation process privilege by bringing a legal malpractice claim against a former attorney and that communications protected by the mediation process privilege cannot form the basis of a plaintiff’s claims.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a telecommunications company’s federal and state tariffs limit liability to non-customers.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two holds insurer may exclude underinsured motorist coverage when insured is driving large commercial truck.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that: (1) an Arizona company’s sales of securities outside of Arizona are subject to Arizona’s blue-sky securities statutes; (2) those laws are not preempted by federal law; and (3) they do not impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case may cross-examine a standard-of-care expert about the expert’s personal practices.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that (i) issue of punitive damages should be submitted to the jury when a question of fact regarding intent is presented; (ii) a statutory right to attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 46-455(H) accrued when the claim accrued; and (iii) “costs of suit” under A.R.S. § 46-455(H) does not expand the definition of taxable costs under A.R.S. § 12-332.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that failure to attach an information statement to a certified copy of a judgment when seeking to create a judgment lien does not invalidate an otherwise valid lien but does affect the priority of the lienholder.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that medical standard of care experts who practice in a subspecialty are not qualified experts in the more general specialty.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that the Corporation Commission’s approval of utility rate surcharges to recoup capital expenditures made between rate cases is unconstitutional.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that an agreement between an insured and an entity controlled by the insured does not create a valid Morris agreement.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a municipal airport with no air traffic control capabilities does not have an ongoing duty to an aircraft after it has left the airport.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that interest, late fees, and mandatory construction deposits are costs commonly associated with a mortgage and are purchase money sums for purposes of the anti-deficiency statutes.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a news organization’s broadcast of a suicide on live television addressed a matter of public concern, thereby barring claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that foreign trustee is not subject to personal jurisdiction merely by accepting trusteeship of trust that was previously administered in Arizona.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that agreements violate the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution where the agreement places no obligations or requirements on the private entity in exchange for receiving public funds.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that interest on Worker’s Compensation death claims accrues from the day the carrier is notified of a claim.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a licensed contractor can pursue an action to recover the value of the licensed work even if the contractor also performed unlicensed work at the same time.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that compliance with A.R.S. § 20-259.01 does not bar a negligence claim alleging that an insurance agent failed to procure uninsured motorist coverage requested by an insured.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that the Arizona Corporation Commission’s decision to waive the renewable energy rules for an experimental waste-to-energy facility is affirmed under the deferential standard of review applicable to Commission ratemaking decisions.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that non-hospital health care providers may perfect a medical lien retroactively for services provided in the 30 days preceding recordation of the lien.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One upholds administrative penalties levied for violations of the Arizona Securities Act, holding that loss causation need not be proved for administrative securities law enforcement.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds homebuilder not liable to non-original homeowner’s economic loss arising from construction defects.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that injuries sustained on the way home immediately after completing a business errand are not compensable under the workers’ compensation system.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that a Rule 15(a) motion to amend a pleading must be filed in order to substitute a party and that the motion may be denied if the court finds undue delay or prejudice.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that sign walker advertising is a matter of state concern, permitting the state to preempt local laws banning sign walking.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a public records request can be noncommercial under Arizona’s statutes even if it does not relate to a specific or pending case and does not involve records that are admissible, A.R.S. § 39-121.03(D).
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that the date of valuation for calculating losses under a title insurance policy protecting lenders is the date the loans were issued.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that healthcare providers cannot compel a health insurance plan to arbitrate Medicare coverage claims.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that payments made pursuant to a judgment should be allocated to outstanding interest first, then to any remaining principal balance.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One declines to adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling in a class action in light of Arizona’s savings statute, A.R.S. § 12-504.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that an arbitrator’s filing of an award in the superior court does not create an enforceable judgment in compulsory arbitration cases.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a landowner generally is not liable for the negligent conduct of an independent contractor unless the landowner has been independently negligent.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that a settlement agreement reached without the clients’ consent and without the clients’ signatures is binding when the clients’ attorney had apparent authority to settle the case.
The Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a moving party does not waive the attorney client privilege by filing a motion to disqualify opposing counsel based on receipt of inadvertently disclosed privileged materials.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that only a natural person who owns real property can execute a beneficiary deed pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-405.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a municipal corporation is a “person” subject to the Arizona Fair Housing Act and that the administration of a federal housing voucher program is conduct subject to that Act.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that the federal Locomotive Inspection Act does not preempt state-law claims that are based on a failure to meet federal standards of care.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds guarantors may prospectively waive the protections of Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that failure to challenge denial of workers’ compensation benefits through Industrial Commission bars recovery of unpaid benefits in bad faith action against workers’ compensation insurer.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two holds that A.R.S. § 12-820.05(B) immunizes a public entity for losses caused by an employee’s criminal acts so long as the public entity lacks actual knowledge of the employee’s propensity for such conduct, even when the plaintiff claims that the public entity itself was negligent for hiring an employee with past misconduct.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two holds that all notices under the Little Miller Act must be sent by registered or certified mail.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that (1) a creditor cannot collect the value of a debtor spouse’s purely nonfinancial contributions to a marital community from the community property earnings of the non-debtor spouse, and that (2) the transfers of a non-debtor spouse do not violate the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act.
The Arizona Supreme Court holds that A.R.S. § 12-820.03 provides an affirmative defense to the State for injuries arising out of roadway designs that meet current standards when first designed even when material changes to travel over roadways have rendered the original roadway designs substandard.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers do not assume a legal duty when undertaking to provide next-of-kin notifications.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two holds that a signatory to an agreement that includes an arbitration provision cannot compel arbitration against non-signatories who do not receive a direct benefit from the arbitration agreement or seek to enforce that agreement.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a state agency must follow rulemaking procedures before enforcing generally applicable policy.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that (1) a person who occupies or intends to occupy a residence, and who is the trustor, trustee, and beneficiary of a revocable trust that owns the property, meets the statutory owner–occupant requirement for making a claim to the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund, and (2) the “person injured” need not participate in the underlying complaint or have privity of contract.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that trial court orders declining to set aside an order appointing or releasing a receiver are not final appealable orders under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b).
Arizona Supreme Court holds that A.R.S. § 20-259.01(B)’s requirement that auto insurers offer underinsured motor insurance to policyholders does not require the insurer to specify the cost of the coverage.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a university owes no duty of care to students participating in study-abroad programs.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that appeal of one judgment does not give the superior court power to stay execution of a different judgment.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two holds that (1) failing to strictly comply with A.R.S. § 19-111(B) renders all signature sheets of a referendum petition invalid and (2) § 19-111(B) is constitutional.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that county treasurer is not required to distribute tax increment financing revenue to finance redevelopment projects adopted by cities before the repeal of A.R.S. § 36-1488.01.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds attorney fees incurred in proving fraud in the marriage is a marital debt subject to satisfaction from assets in marital estate.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that under A.R.S. § 12-2108 and ARCAP 7, the amount of a supersedeas bond cannot exceed the total amount of damages awarded, which does not include attorneys’ fees and costs.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that it was error to award claimant reimbursement for travel from Flagstaff to Phoenix because the record did not establish that claimant had no choice but to travel for medical treatment.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a company that has filed a request to reinstate a lapsed insurance policy must inform the insurance company of injuries or loss claims occurring after its request for reinstatement and before its policy is reinstated.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that legal malpractice claims for failure to join a party and failure to timely commence an action do not accrue until the underlying litigation is finally resolved.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that under A.R.S. § 23-1062(B) an injured worker seeking compensation for any type of disability must prove seven consecutive calendar days of some type of work-related disability.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that Arizona’s garage lien statute, A.R.S. § 33-1022(A), creates a lien in favor of a garage proprietor when the owner of a motor vehicle agrees to the amount of some, but not all, of the charges for repairs.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that Arizona’s anti-deficiency laws do not bar a deficiency judgment against an owner of a vacant lot.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that the Consumer Fraud Act applies to the sale and advertisement of prescription medications but that the learned-intermediary doctrine does not.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that: a verdict that shocks the conscience requires a new trial on all issues; truth can be an absolute defense to defamation but not to false light invasion of privacy; and a medical battery claim is supported where the doctor willfully disregards the patient’s limited consent.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that an insurer does not waive the attorney-client privilege by asserting the defense of subjective good faith in a bad faith case unless it asserts that it depended on the advice of counsel in forming its subjective beliefs.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two holds that superior court cannot enter an order disgorging a receiver’s fees when the receiver has not been named as a party.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that parties may not prospectively waive their right under A.R.S. § 33-814(A) to have the fair market value of property securing a promissory note credited against the amount owed on the note when the property is sold at a trustee’s sale.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a member cannot as a matter of law maintain a derivative action on behalf of a limited liability company under A.R.S. § 29-831 when ousted as member before the derivative action is filed.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that a homeowner is entitled to “owner-occupant” status under A.R.S. § 33-1002(B) if the homeowner holds “owner-occupant” status when the lien is recorded.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that hospitals that accept payment from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (“AHCCCS”) for services rendered to AHCCCS patients cannot seek to impose and enforce liens on funds the patients obtained from third-party tortfeasors related to services provided because such liens are invalid under federal law.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that legislators have standing to challenge whether a bill was passed in a constitutional manner when the group has enough members to block a procedurally proper vote.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that the promptness of a response to a public records request must be made in the context of the entire request rather than individual documents listed in the request.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two holds that long-term disability benefits paid to a claimant by a nonparty did not impact the timeliness of temporary compensation benefits and that an award of interest on temporary compensation benefits that were not timely paid is not precluded where the claimant received an overpayment of long-term disability benefits.

References: § 28
 § 28
 § 12
 § 45
 § 46
 § 46
 § 12
 § 20
 § 39
 § 12
 § 33
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 20
 § 19
 § 19
 § 36
 § 12
 § 23
 § 33
 § 33
 § 29
 § 33