JSH Reporter JSH Reporter - Fall 2017 - Page 6

APPELLATE HIGHLIGHTS 06 January 3, 2017 May 11, 2017 Coulter v. Thornton, LLP American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. (Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1) Consistent with the discovery rule, determining the accrual date for accountant malpractice claims is a fact-based inquiry that turns on when a party knew or reasonably should have known of facts establishing a basis for the claim. (Arizona Supreme Court) A.R.S. § 12-341.01 applies for purposes of determining the successful party in a breach claim arising under a contract that does not itself define “prevailing party,” but does incorporate Arizona law to determine the parties’ rights and remedies. March 30, 2017 Acri v. Arizona May 30, 2017 (Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1) County of Los Angeles v. Mendez The State did not owe a duty to residents of Yarnell and surrounding areas in negligence case arising from damage caused by the Yarnell Hill Fire. (U. S. Supreme Court) April 20, 2017 Wagner v. Arizona If a seizure is reasonable, courts cannot create liability by looking back in time to assess whether a different Fourth Amendment violation might have been tied to the eventual use of force. June 20, 2017 (Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1) Employee of private contractor working in a state-owned prison was a statutory employee of the State and could not pursue a tort action against the State for her work- related injuries. Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson (Arizona Supreme Court) APSA claim requires proof that: (1) a vulnerable adult, (2) has suffered an injury, (3) caused by abuse, (4) from a caregiver. April 25, 2017 Dobson Bay Club v. La Sonrisa De Siena, LLC (Arizona Supreme Court) $1.4 million late fee assessed on a final loan balloon payment constitutes an unenforceable penalty because liquidated damages contract provisions are only enforceable if the pre-determined amount for damages seeks to compensate the non-breaching party rather than penalize the breaching party. July 13, 2017 Soto v. Sacco (Arizona Supreme Court) Rule 59(i)’s “specificity” requirement, which applies to orders granting new trials, is equally applicable to orders granting remittiturs or additurs. Handled by JSH Appellate Counsel ABOUT THE AUTHOR JONATHAN BARNES Jon concentrates his practice