Arizona

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 the lawsuit after suffering injuries in an automobile accident in which he incurred approximately $22,000 in medical expenses. A portion of his medical expenses were paid by workers’ compensation benefits. Donsen also recovered $15,000 from the third-party tortfeasor and, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1203(D), was required to reimburse his workers’ compensation insurer in the amount of $8,750.

Ferrara v. 21^st Century North America Insurance Company Background

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.

Thomas Kopp, et al., v. Physician Group of Ariz., Inc., et al., No. CV-17-0222-PR (July 9, 2018) – Opinion

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).

At the end of 2015, the Committee on Civil Justice Reform was established as part of the Arizona Supreme Court’s strategic agenda to promote access to justice and improve the court process to better serve the public. Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court approved the procedural reforms proposed by the Committee. These rule changes go into place July 1, 2018, and are important to note for purposes of preparing to successfully defend civil litigation claims.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently considered whether a defendant must submit additional evidence outside the existing record to establish a “meritorious defense” in a motion to set aside a default judgment under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b).[1] The Supreme Court held in Gonzalez v. Nguyen, No. CV-17-0017-PR (April 12, 2018), a defendant may rely on the existing record and a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a matter should be decided on the merits.