The implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (“Implied Warranty”) is imputed into all residential building contracts. Any claim for a breach of the Implied Warranty, even if brought by a subsequent purchaser, arises from the original construction contract and the successful party qualifies for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees under either the contractual fee provision or ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-341.01.

The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two was asked to decide as a matter of law whether the record showed Appellant’s abuse of process claim was timely.

In Arizona, a jury-trial waiver is enforceable in negligence actions. Importantly, the jury trial need not be “knowingly and voluntarily waived,” and a corporate parent’s waiver can bind its subsidiary.

In a matter of first impression in Arizona, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals
determined that a movant does not waive its right to compel arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act (“FAA”) by failing to raise arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer.

While Arizona’s statutes prohibit certain types of injunctive relief against public officers and entities, where the injunction is not expressly prohibited, and there is a question whether the government actor acted unlawfully, the injunction may be granted.

Where a contract does not define “prevailing party” for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees, but
provides that a prevailing party is entitled to attorneys’ fees, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §12-341.01(A) applies
to determine the successful party.

In a lawsuit filed against the Arizona Department of Water Resources, a state agency, an award of attorneys’ fees under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-348.01 is not subject to the $10,000 cap found in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-348(E)(4).

In Arizona, juries may now apportion fault to non-party physicians who treated plaintiff for injuries caused by a defendant’s negligence.

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently determined that Arizona Municipalities may exercise their discretion to abandon roadways that they may determine are no longer needed through the process of public sales.

Arizona declines to impose a duty on an employer when a child contracts Mesothelioma as result of “take-home exposure” arising from a parent’s exposure to asbestos at the workplace.

This case examined the issue of the determination of the “successful party” in litigation arising out of contract for the purpose of an award of attorney’s fees under A.R.S. section 12-341.01(A).

This consolidated appeal addresses the issue of whether language contemplated by Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 54(c) is required for a ruling to be appealable other than as a “final judgment” under A.R.S. § 12-2101 (A)(1).