Opinion ID: 744916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fraud and Punitive Damages

Text: 56 In Arizona, to establish actionable fraud, the plaintiff must show a concurrence of nine elements: (1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the speaker's intent that it should be acted upon by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) the hearer's reliance on its truth; (8) the hearer's right to rely upon the representation; and (9) consequent and proximate injury. Staheli v. Kauffman, 595 P.2d 172, 175 (Ariz.1979). Each element must be proven by sufficient evidence. Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., 647 P.2d 629, 631 (Ariz.1982). 57 The district court properly refused to instruct the jury on a claim of fraud. The Ahrings cite a long list of actions by SFM which indicate that it was acting fraudulently in its investigation of the accident under the Rogers policies. Although none of these actions are persuasive, the Ahrings most notably fail to prove any damage whatsoever from all of this alleged misconduct. The absence of this crucial element is fatal to the Ahrings' claim of fraud. 58 The district court was also correct to enter a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. An award of punitive damages for a bad faith claim requires proof that the defendant's conduct was aggravated, outrageous, malicious, or fraudulent. Rawlings v. Apodaca, 726 P.2d 565, 578 (Ariz.1986). Punitive damages may not be awarded unless the evidence reflects something more than the conduct making up the elements of a tort. Id. at 577. The Ahrings failed to prove this something more.