Case Updates
Wagner v. Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool (2026)
A Key Development in Bad Faith Litigation
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that a third-party administrator may be held liable for bad faith if it exercises sufficient control over an insurance claim. While bad faith claims traditionally applied only to insurers, the decision opens the door to suing claims administrators that intentionally delay or deny valid benefits, giving injured victims additional legal leverage.
Phoenix Union High School v. Sinclair (2025)
Clarifying School Liability for Off-Campus Injuries
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a school district does not owe a duty of care to students injured on public streets off campus. The Court held that a school’s legal responsibility generally ends when a student is no longer on school grounds or under school supervision, confirming that traffic safety on public roads is the responsibility of the municipality or driver—not the school.
Henke v. Hospital Development of West Phoenix, Inc. (2025)
Affirming the Tiered System for Medical Malpractice Claims
The Arizona courts upheld a higher standard of proof for medical malpractice claims arising from emergency room care. Under Arizona law, plaintiffs must prove negligence by “clear and convincing evidence” rather than the usual standard, making emergency room malpractice cases significantly more difficult to win while still preserving the right to sue.
Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. (2025)
A Win for Plaintiffs_ A Change to the Open and Obvious Danger Defense
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that an “open and obvious” hazard does not eliminate a property owner’s duty of care. Instead, visibility of a danger goes to whether the owner acted reasonably, not whether a duty exists. This decision prevents premises liability cases from being dismissed early and ensures juries decide whether a property owner and an injured person were each negligent.
Dodge v. Yavapai County (2025)
Minimizing the Govt's Liability in Drunk Driving Accidents
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that an “open and obvious” hazard does not eliminate a property owner’s duty of care. Instead, visibility of a danger goes to whether the owner acted reasonably, not whether a duty exists. This decision prevents premises liability cases from being dismissed early and ensures juries decide whether a property owner and an injured person were each negligent.
City of Mesa v. Ryan (2025)
Reinforcing AZ's Strict Compliance Requirement When Suing the Govt
The Arizona Supreme Court held that demanding “policy limits” does not meet the requirement to state a specific dollar amount in a Notice of Claim against a government entity. Because the plaintiff failed to list an exact sum, the case was dismissed, highlighting Arizona’s strict rules and the risk of losing a claim over procedural errors.