Jump to Navigation

Blog Topic

Topics

"Strict" Products Liability Dead in Arizona?
Abuse and neglect is still rampant in nursing homes
Architect Can Be Liable for Economic Loss Caused by Negligence
Arizona Court of Appeals Holds Crop Dusting is Still an Inherently Dangerous Activity
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Excessive Punitive Damages Unconstitutional
Arizona Legislature "tort reform" statute does not violate State Constitution Separation of Powers
Arizona Preliminary Med Mal Expert Affidavit Requirement Constitutional
Arizona Statute Update
Arizona Supreme Court Announces Guidelines for Notice of Claim in Class Action
Arizona Supreme Court Brings Reason to Notice of Claim Requirements
Arizona does not recognize a first or third party claim for spoilation of evidence
Asserting 5th Amendment in Civil Action Creates Inference of Guilt
Asserting 5th Amendment in Civil Action Creates Inference of Guilt
Attorney Can Be Liable for Malicious Prosecution & Aiding and Abetting
Attorney Malpractice Claim Requires Proving Case Within a Case
Attorneys' Fees Properly Awarded After Voluntary Dismissal
Bar Owner's Responsibility for Drunk Drivers
Bizzare and Dangerous Side Effects of Anti-Nausea Drug
Burns and Burn Injuries
Bush Administration Policies Show Disdain for Consumer Safety - Pre-Emption
Business Interruption Insurance Where Expansion of Business Collapses
Car Dealer's Insurance Policy Doesn't Cover "Customers"
Causation Expert Can Opine on Standard of Care says New Court of Appeals Case
Charter School not State Actor in Employment Matters
Child Crawls through Pet Door Drowns in Pool
Children face greater harm from medical mistakes
Compulsory Arbitration Sanctions in Arizona Mandatory
Confession to Clergyman Priviliged Even if Wife Present
Constitutional Comparisons with Japan
Consumer Safety -- Toys
Court Interpreter Qualifications For Trial Judge To Determine
Court of Appeals Announces Criteria for Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Case
Court of Appeals Protects Insurance Company Right to Intervene
Damages
Damron/Morris Agreements May Apply to Non-Insurance Contracts to Indemnify
Damron/Morris Agreements May Apply to Non-Insurance Contracts to Indemnify
Dangerous Diet Aids Pulled From the Shelves
Deadly Pacemaker Wires
Deadly Peanut Butter Kills 8, Sickens Hundreds Nationwide
Deadly Peanut Butter Kills 8, Sickens hundreds Nationwide
Discovery Sanction of Striking Complaint
Doctor/Patient Privilege No Bar to Identity of Patient Witnessing Fall of Plaintiff's Decedent
Drunk Driver's Right to Sue State Limited
Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Tort Claims for Construction Defects
Electoral College Part I: What is it?
Electoral College Part II: Where does the Electoral College come from and why do we still have it?
Employer's Liability for Acts of Employee
Employer's Liability for Acts of Employee--Part II Scope of Employment
Employer's Responsibility for Acts of Employee Part II
Epilepsy drug causes drop in child?s IQ when taken by pregnant mother
Evidence of Signs Posted After Accident Inadmissible
Evidence of Violation of OSHA Can Help Prove Standard of Care
Failure to Attend Arbitration Grounds for Dismissing Appeal
Failure to Warn and Federal Preemption
Forum Non Conveniens not Applicable Where Product sold in Arizona to Arizona Resident
Half of hospital workers don't wash their hands properly
IME Doctor Can be Liable for Negligent Diagnosis
IME doctor not Liable for "Aiding and Abetting" Insurance Co. in Bad Faith Denial of Workers Comp Claim
Injuries or Death on Someone Else's Property--What is an Invitee?
Insurance Bad Faith
Interest on Judgment Against State
Knowing the signs of stroke can save your life
LED Lights Safer for Bike Riders and Pedestrians
Lawsuits Against Lawyers for Negligence in the Representation on the Rise
Medical Malpractice
Medical Malpractice Statute Requiring Affidavit Constitutional
Medical Negligence--Informed Consent
Medical Negligence--The Standard of Care
Negligence--failure to use reasonable care
New 9th Circuit Case--Tribal Immunity bars dram shop & negligence claims
New Arizona Case - Expert Affidavit
New Arizona Case - Expert Witness Qualification
New Arizona Case - Governmental Immunity
New Arizona Case - Insurance Reservation of Rights
New Arizona Case - Notice of Claim
New Arizona Case - Notice of Claim
New Arizona Case - Pleadings
New Arizona Case - Statute of Frauds
New Arizona Case - Taxable Costs
New Arizona Case Decides Timliness of Request for Fees and Rule 11 Sanctions
New Arizona Case: Indemnity Agreement Raises Fact Questions
New Arizona Case: Liability Limitation in Contract Upheld
New Arizona Case: Punitive Damages Survive Death/ Loss Enjoyment of Life Damages Do Not Survive Death
New Arizona Supreme Court Case Explains How Class Representatives Comply with Notice of Claim Statute
New Court of Appeals Case on NonParty at Fault Designations, Liquidated Damages and Rule 68 Sanctions
New Court of Appeals Decision Holds Summary Judgment is not a Discovery Sanction
No Right to Appeal Denial of Motion for New Trial Based Upon Granting of Partial Summary Judgment
No Right to Second Notice of Change of Judge After Case Consolidation
Nonparty not Boundby Protective Order
Notice of Claim--Factual Support for Damage Amount Minimal
Notice of Claim?Factual Support for Damages and Negligent Failure to Identify Dead Body
Offer of Underinsured Motorist Coverage Should be in Spanish
Our Results
Patients Injured by Az Dept of Health and its Agencies Can Sue
Pet is Personal Property so no Emmotional Distress Damages for Pet's Death
Pool Filters Can Explode and Maim and Kill
Private Arbitration Rules Strictly Enforced
Products Liability
Qualified Immunity from Defamation Claim when Reporting Medical Misconduct
Records of Dangerous Fire Causing TV One Step Closer to Release
School Board Must be Served with Notice of Claim
Scope of Discovery of Expert Bias
Seat Belt Use Key in Auto Products Liability Case in Arizona
Sedona Sweat Lodge Tragedy
Sexual Assualt Case Settles for $850,000-University Must Revamp Rules
Social Networking: Be Careful What You Share
Spinal Cord Injury
State Tort Claims Not Preempted by Manufacturer's Voluntary Product Replacement
State Tort Claims Not Preempted for Failure to Warn Regarding Generic Drug
State of Arizona can Assert Lien Rights for Medical Expenses Paid State Employee against Tort Recovery
Statute of Limitations on Legal Malpractice in Handling Bankruptcy Action
Steroids and our Youth--Can Coach be Liable?
Summary Judgment is not a Discovery Sanction
Supreme Court Rules on "Reverse Discrimination."
Supreme Court Heightens Standard in Fear of Cancer Claims
Supreme Court Rules that Strip Search of 13-year-old Student was Unconstitutional
Supreme Court's Decision a Stunning Blow for Partisan Judicial Elections
Tardy Filing of Cost Bond Does Not Destroy Superior Court Jurisdiction of Appeal from Mandatory Arbitration
The ?Eggshell Rule? In Negligence Actions
Thousands of Nursing Homes Flunk Medicare Rating Test
TopicHealthcare Reform 101: What is it Exactly that Capitol Hill is Trying to Change About Our Healthcare System?
Tort Damages Allowed Where no Personal Injury or Personal Property Damage
Trial Court May Set Time Limits on Witness Examination
Tucson Cell Tower Worker Falls 65 Feet and Dies -- Who Is Responsible?
U.S. Supreme Court Ok?s Photo ID Law to Vote
United States Supreme Court Holds State Tort Claim for Failure to Warn not Preempted
Vick's Vapo Rub May Cause Breathing Problems in Toddlers
What is a Wrongful Death Action and Who can Bring It?
What to Do if You are in an Auto Accident
What to do if You are Involved in an Auto Accident--Part II Injuries
When Supersedeas Bond May be Less than Judgment
Worker's Comp Bad Faith Action Includes Traditional Tort Damages
eBay Seller in Michigan Safe from Lawsuit in Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court Brings Reason to Notice of Claim Requirements

Civil Procedure—Notice of Claim Must State Facts Claimant Believes Support Claim

 

Backus v State, __Az. Adv. Rep. __ No. Cv-08-0284-PR (March 19, 2009) (Chief Justice McGregor)

 

NOTICE OF CLAIM MUST STATE FACTS SUPPORTING THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM THAT ARE KNOWN TO CLAIMANT

 

In these consolidated wrongful death cases the plaintiffs set forth a specific dollar amount it would settle the case identifying who the survivors were and in one case arguing the amount was supported by a claim for $21,500 per year for the life expectancy of the decedent.  Both cases were dismissed by the trial court on the basis that factual basis supporting the amount of the demand in the notice of claim was inadequate.

 

The Supreme Court first identified the three elements that must be covered in a proper notice of claim: “(1) facts sufficient to permit the public entity to understand the basis upon which liability is claimed, (2) a specific amount for which the claim can be settled, and (3) the facts supporting the amount claimed.”  ARS 12-821.01.A.  Compliance allows the public entity the opportunity to investigate and assess liability, possibly settle the claim and otherwise budget its money.

 

In Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007) the Supreme Court disallowed a notice of claim which set forth an amount but repeatedly used qualifying language making it “impossible to ascertain the precise amount” the case would settle for however the court did not reach the question of what “supporting facts” are necessary to support the amount.

 

Here the defense argues that the facts set forth in the notice when challenged should be “objectively” evaluated by the trial judge and if inadequate the notice declared inadequate and the suit dismissed even if as a consequence the case becomes time barred.  The Supreme Court disagreed finding that to require such an analysis would create “satellite litigation” that will be potentially expensive, time consuming and create unnecessary barriers to claimant operating on a very short (180 days) timeline who cannot know what facts the public entity would want or find sufficient.

 

The court instead held “the statutory requirement that the claim include the facts supporting the amount claimed must refer to the view of the claimant, rather than to that of the public entity . . . a claimant complies  . . . by providing the factual foundation that the claimant regards as adequate to permit the public entity to evaluate the specific amount claimed. This standard does not require a claimant to provide an exhaustive list of facts; as long as a claimant provides facts to support the amount claimed, he has complied with the supporting –facts requirement of the statute, and courts should not scrutinize the claimant’s description of facts to determine the ‘sufficiency’ of the factual disclosure.” 

 

Finally the court stated that the desire to get a case settled would work against any fear the plaintiff will intentionally hide or carelessly fail to reveal important facts supporting the damages and that the ethical and professional obligations of an attorney would inhibit attempts to mislead, hide or otherwise fail to adequately disclose facts supporting the damage claim.

We specialize in claims against public entities. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured or killed and you believe a public entity or an employee of a public entity is to blame, contact us, we may be able to help.