This case arose from McBride’s wrongful termination lawsuit against KAI, which KAI sought to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds. McBride claimed the parties’ attorneys had orally agreed to toll the limitations period during settlement talks and that equitable estoppel barred KAI from asserting the defense. After a bifurcated jury trial on these preliminary issues, the jury found a tolling agreement existed and made advisory findings supporting estoppel, but the trial court rejected the estoppel findings, granted KAI judgment as a matter of law on the tolling agreement, and conditionally ordered a new trial on that issue. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the JMOL because conflicting evidence allowed a reasonable jury to find a tolling agreement, affirmed the conditional new-trial ruling as within the trial court’s discretion, and upheld the rejection of equitable estoppel because KAI never acknowledged McBride’s claim. The court remanded for further proceedings, including a new trial on whether a tolling agreement existed.
The case arose from Melissa Duncan's personal injury lawsuit against George Pop following a 2007 car accident; Pop died before service of process, prompting Duncan to obtain informal appointment of a special administrator in a separate probate proceeding solely to accept service and tender defense to Pop's insurer, Progressive. The superior court granted Progressive's motion to intervene and dismiss under Rule 12(b)(4), finding the special administrator's appointment invalid under A.R.S. § 14-3614(1) because it was not necessary to protect the estate and no general personal representative was appointed. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded, holding that Progressive's challenge constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the probate court's appointment order. The court reasoned that letters of special administration vested the administrator with authority to accept service until terminated or removed, and any challenge to the appointment's validity must occur in the probate proceeding rather than the tort action.
Fidelity sued its surety bond agent Bondwriter for breach of contract and negligence after Bondwriter mistakenly issued unauthorized performance and payment bonds for a large construction project, leading to claims against the bonds and damages exceeding $511,000. Following a bench trial, the court ruled for Fidelity on both claims but apportioned damages according to comparative fault, holding Bondwriter only five percent responsible and entering judgment for about $25,500. On appeal, the court held that comparative fault principles do not apply to contract claims, affirmed the breach of contract ruling in Fidelity's favor, vacated the damages and attorneys' fees awards, and remanded for a redetermination of damages without fault apportionment.
The case involved Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. foreclosing on a tax lien it acquired for unpaid 2003 property taxes on a parcel owned by the Shermans. After APT obtained a default judgment foreclosing the Shermans' redemption rights, the Shermans moved under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c) to set aside the judgment, arguing that APT had not complied with the statutory notice requirement before filing suit. The appellate court reversed the denial of the motion, concluding that APT sent its notice of intent to foreclose to an address the Shermans had sold years earlier and therefore failed to satisfy A.R.S. § 42-18202(A), which rendered the default judgment void for lack of authority to proceed.
In this case, Melissa Duncan filed a personal injury lawsuit against George Pop for injuries from a 2007 car accident covered by a Progressive insurance policy, but Pop died before service of process could be completed. Duncan obtained an informal appointment of a special administrator in a related probate proceeding for the limited purpose of accepting service on behalf of the estate, which occurred. Progressive intervened and successfully moved to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(4) for insufficiency of process, contending that the special administrator appointment was invalid because Pop's heirs had not been notified. The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded, reasoning that the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the probate court's order and letters of administration appointing the special administrator.
North Peak Construction sued Architecture Plus and its principals for breach of implied warranty and negligence after discovering that the architectural plans for a custom home failed to orient the structure to maximize city views as specified by the client, resulting in extra construction costs. The trial court dismissed the implied warranty claim, concluding that the allegations sounded in tort rather than contract and citing precedents like Barmat. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal, holding that a valid claim for breach of implied warranty exists against design professionals based on the duty to prepare plans with reasonable skill and in conformance with project specifications, as recognized in Donnelly v. Oberg. The decision distinguishes the implied warranty claim from pure negligence and remands for further proceedings while noting that attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) do not apply because the warranty is implied by law.