Sitar Bhatt is a Partner in Tyson & Mendes’ Phoenix office. His practice focuses primarily on general liability, personal injury, premises liability, and bad faith litigation. Mr. Bhatt has successfully represented individuals and businesses in Arizona state and federal district courts as well as arbitrations.
Mr. Bhatt has successfully resolved a variety cases involving personal injury, property damage, and insurance coverage. Mr. Bhatt has won at multiple arbitrations saving his clients over $100,000. He has also successfully settled multiple bodily injury and property damage cases.
Mr. Bhatt earned his J.D. in 2011 from Arizona Summit Law School. He is licensed to practice law in Arizona. Mr. Bhatt is a member of the Arizona Association of Defense Counsel.
In his free time, Mr. Bhatt enjoys spending time with his wife and his family. He is an avid sports fan who loves watching and playing all sports.
It is an age-old question in dram shop cases: When does the scope of a liquor licensee’s liability end for injuries its customer caused after a night of drinking and irresponsible decisions? An important secondary question is: What is considered an “intervening superseding cause,” which cuts off the liability of an establishment? The general rule is, if an injured plaintiff can establish a “non-speculative causal connection” or argue that a reasonable person would not have continued to serve the defendant…
Camelot Homes v. Genaro’s Framing Construction LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0704 (June 9, 2020) – Memorandum
Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s denial of leave to amend a complaint where it was unduly delayed and the proposed amendments were futile. Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2): … a party may amend its pleading only with leave of court or with the written consent of all opposing parties who have appeared in the action. Leave to amend must be freely given when justice requires.
Helmreich, et al. v. AHC, et al., No. 1 CA-CV 19-0435 (April 21, 2020) – Memorandum
Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Arizona’s intoxication statute, A.R.S. §12-711, is not encompassed within the comparative fault jury instructions. A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of the case if it is reasonably supported by the evidence.
The 54th Arizona Legislature kicked off a very busy second Regular Session on January 13, 2020. On February 10, 2020, the Arizona Legislature cutoff the introduction of new bills. There are total of 1,581 bills pending before the House and Senate committees which must be heard by February 21, 2020. March 27, 2020, is the deadline for passed House bills to be heard in Senate committees and passed Senate bills to be heard in a House committees.
Campbell v. Pfeifer, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0534 (September 5, 2019) – Memorandum Decision
When plaintiff’s counsel sends a policy-limits demand, it usually encloses an affidavit of no other insurance. Does this automatically mean that acceptance of the demand requires the execution of the affidavit of no additional assets? In Campbell v. Pfeifer, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, reiterated that an executed affidavit of no additional insurance is dependent upon the construction of the language in the policy-limits demand.
Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, revisited the “reasonably susceptible” analysis in determining whether to consider parol evidence to interpret a contract. In Donsen v. Farmers Insurance, No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0174 (October 3, 2018), plaintiff Samuel Donsen (“Donsen”) filed a complaint against Farmers Insurance (“Farmers”) claiming breach of contract, declaratory relief, insurance bad faith, and interference with contract. Donsen filed…
In Ferrara v. 21st Century North America Insurance Company, No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0195 (September 10, 2018), the Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two reviewed whether plaintiff Cynthia Ferrara’s (“Ferrara”) motion for class certification complied with the requirements of Rule 23, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision, which granted defendants’ summary judgment motion finding the strict liability and negligence claims failed based on the lack evidence to support such claims.
In a recent opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled a dismissal with prejudice does not, on its own, trigger issue preclusion. Thomas Kopp v. Physician Group of Arizona, et. al. No. CV-17-0222-PR (July 9, 2018) – Opinion. In doing so, the Court overturned a 73 year old ruling in DeGraff v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 261, 269-70 (1945) that a dismissal with prejudice is a judgment on the merits that carries preclusive effect.
When an insured assigns its rights to post-loss benefits to a third-party, under the insurance policies, can the third-party bring a breach of contract claim against the insurer? According to an Arizona Court of Appeals holding, post-loss assignments of benefits under insurance policies are valid despite anti-assignment provisions. Farmers v. Hon. Udall and EcoDry, No. 1 CA-SA 18-0081 (June 12, 2018).