Opinion ID: 1189720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jurisprudential considerations

Text: We deal, in this and similar cases, with recognition, denial, preemption, and abrogation of common-law damage actions. Unlike most state constitutions, the Arizona Constitution specifically protects many of these rights from legislative or executive abrogation. Hazine, 176 Ariz. at 342, 861 P.2d at 627; Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 152 Ariz. 9, 730 P.2d 186 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1029, 107 S.Ct. 1954, 95 L.Ed.2d 527 (1987). The right to pursue common-law damage remedies is protected by constitutional text, [15] has origins in the foundation and history of our state, and has been jealously protected by this court's jurisprudence from the first days of statehood. See, e.g., Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Ujack, 15 Ariz. 382, 139 P. 465 (1914); Alabam's Freight Co. v. Hunt, 29 Ariz. 419, 242 P. 658 (1926); State ex rel. Industrial Comm'n v. Pressley, 74 Ariz. 412, 250 P.2d 992 (1952); Kenyon v. Hammer, 142 Ariz. 69, 688 P.2d 961 (1984); Boswell, 152 Ariz. 9, 730 P.2d 186; Hazine, 176 Ariz. 340, 861 P.2d 625. [16] Even a more restrictive analysis applies the guarantees of art 18, § 6 to industrial injury cases. See Roger C. Henderson, Tort Reform, Separation of Powers, and the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910, 35 ARIZ. L.REV. 535 (1993). Thus, even in situations in which the legislature can constitutionally abrogate, preempt, or deny common-law rights, [17] given the importance of those concepts in Arizona history and jurisprudence, we are reluctant to interpret a statute in favor of denial or preemption of tort claims  even those that are not or may not be constitutionally protected  if there is any reasonable doubt about the legislature's intent. Even if the cause of action is not protected by the constitution in this area of the law, therefore, several factors must be considered, including: First, if possible this court construes statutes to avoid rendering them unconstitutional. Slayton v. Shumway, 166 Ariz. 87, 92, 800 P.2d 590, 595 (1990); Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Found., 130 Ariz. 550, 554, 637 P.2d 1053, 1057 (1981); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 1993 WL 537923, 155 Ariz.Adv.Rep. 11 (Ct.App. 1993). Second, if possible we construe statutes to avoid unnecessary resolution of constitutional issues. See Petolicchio, 177 Ariz. at 259, 866 P.2d at 1345; Dunn, 177 Ariz. at 196, 866 P.2d at 864; State v. Yslas, 139 Ariz. 60, 63, 676 P.2d 1118, 1121 (1984). Third, courts endeavor to avoid overbroad statutory interpretations that afford unintended immunity in derogation of commonlaw rights of action. Wringer v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 210, 213 (D.Ariz. 1992), aff'd, 10 F.3d 809 (9th Cir.1993); In re Estate of Thelen, 9 Ariz. App. 157, 160-61, 450 P.2d 123, 126-27 (1969). Fourth, because the superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction, we construe statutes in favor of retaining jurisdiction and will not find divestiture unless stated clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously. Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 430, 788 P.2d 1178, 1181 (1990); Daou v. Harris, 139 Ariz. 353, 356, 678 P.2d 934, 937 (1984). Thus, this court has generally declined to find preemption of a cause of action in the absence of a very clear statement of legislative intent or, better yet, a clear statement in the statute's text. Cf. Carrow, 167 Ariz. at 21, 804 P.2d at 750 (absent manifest legislative intent to the contrary, statutes are to be construed as consistent with the common law); See also SUTHERLAND § 61.01, at 172 (courts presume that legislature does not intend to abrogate common-law rights of action). Finally, and most important, the foregoing general rules and the basic jurisprudential policy described in this section militate in favor of a general and fixed rule to be applied when we are asked to construe a statute in such a way as to deny common-law actions. If the legislature seeks to preempt a cause of action or to deprive the courts of jurisdiction, the law's text or at least the legislative record should say so explicitly. This court will then know the legislature's intent and will not have to look for the friendly face or use the divining rod of judicial speculation to find it. Such a rule  refusing to construe ambiguous statutes to deny common-law rights  saves us from having to ascertain what is often unknowable. It also forces the debate over the propriety of denial, preemption, and abrogation of our citizens' rights to be held at the place where such disputes should be settled: at the legislature. There citizens can be heard, interest groups can lobby, and legislators can debate these factors as a condition of the statute's passage or defeat. The purpose and effect of the statute will then be apparent to the public and to the legislators before the law is passed. In contrast, in this court we can only speculate after the bill has been passed, with nothing to rely on except legislative records often as sparse as those in the present case, in which the only specific mention of the effects of the statute was made by nonlegislators during a hearing in a legislative session in which the bill was not passed. A useful analogy can be drawn to cases discussing whether a private common-law action may be based on a regulatory statute. See, e.g., Melancon v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 174 Ariz. 344, 348, 849 P.2d 1374, 1378 (Ct.App. 1992). Various standards have been applied to determine whether a given statute creates an implied private right of action. Compare Sparks, 132 Ariz. at 541, 647 P.2d at 1139 (relying on statutory provisions stating that regulatory enforcement does not preclude other liability), with City of Tucson v. Superior Court, 127 Ariz. 205, 208, 619 P.2d 33, 36 (Ct.App. 1980) (applying a four-prong test to determine whether a private right of action should be inferred, relying on Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2088, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975)). We think, however, that there is merit in a simpler rule of construction: we will not interpret a law to deny, preempt, or abrogate common-law damage actions unless the statute's text or history shows an explicit legislative intent to reach so severe a result. It is, after all, easy enough for the legislature to state that a certain statute does or does not create, preempt, or abrogate a private right of action. The appropriate language is known to the legislature. [18] Under such a rule, then, members of the public would know a statute's effect in advance and could advocate their views to the legislature at a time when they would affect those whose actions are constitutionally intended to be controlled by the democratic process. In the same way, it is in the overall best interest of our entire state government if its judicial branch is not continually put in the position of rendering post hoc constructions of unclear statutes that may affect constitutionally protected rights. Finally, if legislators know in advance that ambiguous language will lead to this outcome, they can act accordingly. We therefore reaffirm the principle that ambiguous statutes will be construed as not forbidding or preempting judicial jurisdiction or common-law actions. See Pritchard, 163 Ariz. 427, 788 P.2d 1178; Daou, 139 Ariz. 353, 678 P.2d 934; see also SUTHERLAND § 61.01, at 172. If the legislature intends to deny, abrogate, or preempt, it must clearly say so. We realize, of course, that unbending application of this policy might sometimes frustrate genuine legislative intent. However, judicial speculation about such intent is undoubtedly incorrect at times, and when it is, it too frustrates the legislature's intent. Furthermore, any tendency to frustrate true legislative intent on these issues will be minimal because this policy encourages legislators to avoid leaving something as important as the existence or nonexistence of common-law rights to inference or implication. [T]he risk that [a fixed policy of construction resulting in a uniform result in the absence of specific legislative statement] would occasionally frustrate genuine legislative intent would decrease from its current level of minimal to virtually zero. It would then be true that the opportunity for frustration of intent would be a virtual dead letter[,] ... limited to drafting errors when [the legislature] simply forgot to codify its intention. .. . Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 192, 108 S.Ct. 513, 523, 98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring) (discussing the implied creation of a private right of action). This regime is surely preferable to the destruction of important rights or remedies by judicial conclusions about legislative intent based on nothing stronger than ambiguous language and inadequate legislative records or history. RESOLUTION Applying the foregoing principles and considerations, we hold that A.R.S. § 23-930 does not divest Arizona courts of jurisdiction over the common-law causes of action recognized in Boy and Franks. [19] This holding gives sensible meaning to the phrase in § 23-930(A) as prescribed in this section. See Tittle v. State, 169 Ariz. 8, 9, 816 P.2d 267, 268 (Ct.App. 1991) (courts must give meaning to each statutory clause if possible). We conclude that this phrase means that the administrative complaints over which the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction are those lodged with it under the regulations that the statute directs it to adopt. See A.R.S. § 23-930(E); Ariz.Admin.Code R4-13-163 (1989). Jurisdiction is exclusive in the administrative agency because the statute is not to be enforced by any entity other than the Commission. The Commission's definition of bad faith, as noted above, is not applicable in actions filed in the courts. The remedies and penalties that the statute provides are available solely through the Commission. [20] This construction also accounts for the legislature's reference to unfair claim practices and complaints rather than to actions for damages. The statute confers jurisdiction over complaints about the practices defined by the Industrial Commission but not over actions pursuant to the common law. Finally, this construction avoids any need to decide this statute's constitutionality under Ariz. Const. art. 18, §§ 6 or 8. [21] Furthermore, the interpretation we adopt today rejects preemption of judicial jurisdiction and of common-law actions by finding the judicial remedy to be compatible with the administrative remedy. We choose this interpretation because neither the statute's text nor the legislative record provides any clear statement of the legislature's intent to preempt judicial jurisdiction or divest our citizens of common-law causes of action. Our interpretation therefore fosters the basic policy of preserving common-law remedies.