Stanley G. Feldman

This case arose from a bad faith lawsuit filed by excess insurer Twin City against primary insurer General Star, alleging that General Star wrongfully refused to settle a wrongful death claim within its $1 million policy limit, resulting in Twin City paying most of a $5.4 million settlement. The trial court compelled Twin City to produce documents and answer interrogatories about its counsel’s monitoring and evaluation of the underlying claim, ruling that Twin City had impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege by filing the bad-faith action. The Arizona Supreme Court held that no waiver occurred under the principles announced in State Farm v. Lee, because Twin City’s claim rested solely on General Star’s conduct and did not place Twin City’s own reliance on counsel’s advice at issue. The court therefore vacated the discovery order as to privileged materials and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a multi-vehicle automobile accident in Arizona involving only California residents, after which the injured plaintiff filed a tort suit in Arizona superior court more than one year but less than two years after the collision. The trial court and court of appeals held that California's one-year statute of limitations barred the action, applying choice-of-law principles that gave greater weight to California's interest in protecting its residents from stale claims. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, concluding that Arizona's two-year statute governs under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 142 because Arizona possesses substantial interests in regulating conduct on its highways, deterring wrongful acts within the state, and providing a forum for claims arising from in-state injuries. The court emphasized that these interests satisfy the Restatement test for applying the forum's limitations period even when all parties are non-residents.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a wrongful death action brought by Connie Wilmot, the surviving spouse of Milton Wilmot, under Arizona’s Wrongful Death Act on behalf of herself and the decedent’s six adult children from a prior marriage. After learning of the children, Wilmot and her counsel notified them of the suit but later settled with the defendants without their consent or further participation, leading the children to challenge the settlement as a breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court confirmed the settlement and denied the children’s motion to set it aside, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the statute requires the statutory plaintiff to act as a fiduciary for all beneficiaries and that a settlement terminating their claims cannot be reached without their consent or proper notice. The core reasoning was that damages under the statute are calculated individually for each beneficiary, so the plaintiff must protect all interests and cannot unilaterally dismiss their claims.

torts & liabilityprocedurefamily law

This case involved the estate of Norma McGill, a woman with a long history of psychiatric illness who died in 1997, suing her psychiatrist, primary care physician, and behavioral health provider for negligence, neglect, and abuse under both Arizona's Adult Protective Services Act (APSA) and Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). The trial court had dismissed or granted summary judgment on the APSA claims, ruling that medical negligence could not support an APSA action. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and held that an APSA damage action may be maintained for negligent medical care provided to a vulnerable or incapacitated adult when the negligent acts were undertaken because of the person's incapacity, were closely connected to the caregiver relationship, and related to the problems giving rise to the incapacity. The court reversed the summary judgment on the APSA claims against the psychiatrist and provider (while noting the claim against the primary care physician was weaker) and remanded for further proceedings under these standards, distinguishing the interplay with the MMA.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved abortion providers challenging Arizona's AHCCCS policy, which funded abortions for indigent women only when necessary to save the mother's life or in cases of rape or incest, but not when medically necessary to protect the mother's health from serious illness. The Arizona Supreme Court held that this selective funding violated the state constitution. The core reasoning was that once the state chooses to fund medically necessary abortions for one group of pregnant women, it cannot deny funding for another group for whom the procedure is also medically necessary to preserve health.

abortionhealthcare

In this case, a debtor filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, which was dismissed, after which her home was sold at a trustee's sale under a deed of trust for $10,304 despite an appraised value of at least $57,500. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court certified the question of whether a trustee's sale of real property can be set aside solely because the bid price was grossly inadequate. The Arizona Supreme Court answered yes, holding that such sales may be vacated on that basis alone. The court's reasoning centered on equitable principles drawn from the Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 8.3, which allow courts to consider gross inadequacy of price to prevent unfair results in non-judicial foreclosures, while balancing concerns for debtors and third-party purchasers.

property