Arizona Issues

Attorney General Sunshine / Private Attorney General Sunshine

Reforms View All »

Government Retention of Personal Injury Lawyers: S.B. 1132 (2012)

Arizona|2012

Limits contingency fees by prohibiting the state from entering into

Limits contingency fees by prohibiting the state from entering into a contingency fee contract providing for the state’s private attorney to receive a contingency fee from this state’s portion of the recovery. The bill also requires posting of executed contingency fees contracts unless the attorney general determines that the posting may cause damage to the reputation of any business or person.

[hide]

Government Retention of Personal Injury Lawyers: H.B. 2423 (2011); A.R.S. § 41-4801.

Arizona|2011

Bars the state from entering into a contingency fee contract

[…]

Bars the state from entering into a contingency fee contract with a private attorney unless the attorney general first makes a written determination that the contingency fee representation is both cost effective and in the public interest. The contract must be posted on the attorney general’s website for at least 365 days. Limits the amount of aggregate contingency fees that the attorney may receive. The private attorney may not receive more than 25% of any recovery less than $10 million, 20% of any recovery of between $10 million and $15 million, 15% of any recovery of between $15 million and $20 million, 10% of any recovery of between $20 million and $25 million, and 5% of any recovery of more than $25 million.

[hide]

Reforms

Class Action Reform: S.B. 1346 (2013)

Arizona|2013

Makes changes to how class action lawsuits are treated in

[…]

Makes changes to how class action lawsuits are treated in Arizona. Most importantly, the bill allows for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification. If the court certifies the class, it is required to certify its action in writing, outlining why the action should be maintained as a class (including providing evidence in support of determination). If an appeal is filed, all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed, except that if a party makes a motion, the court may permit discovery proceedings to continue during the pendency of the appeal. Finally, the bill provides for the trial court to make appropriate orders governing the management of the proceedings and provide for appropriate orders for the protection of class members during the trial proceedings.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Reforms View All »

Lengthy Trial Fund – H.B. 2246

Arizona|2017

Extends the sunset provision of the Arizona lengthy trial fund

[…]

Extends the sunset provision of the Arizona lengthy trial fund from June 30, 2019, to June 30, 2027.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Jury Service Reform: S.B. 1248 (2014)

Arizona|2014

Extends the Lengthy Jury Trial Fund for another ten years

[…]

Extends the Lengthy Jury Trial Fund for another ten years to June 30, 2024. Arizona’s Lengthy Jury Trial Fund was established in 2003 as a part of a comprehensive jury service reform package to attract better jurors. The fund was scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2014.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Reforms View All »

Post-Judgment Interest: H.B. 2162 (1994)

Arizona|1994

Applies only to postjudgment interest on medical liability actions, including

[…]

Applies only to postjudgment interest on medical liability actions, including those resolved through ADR. The postjudgment interest rate is tied to the federal postjudgment interest rate and now has a floor of 3% and a ceiling of 9%.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability Reform: S.B. 1018 (2009)

Arizona|2009

Raised the burden of proof in medical liability actions against

[…]

Raised the burden of proof in medical liability actions against healthcare providers and hospitals to clear and convincing evidence in connection with certain emergency medical services.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Reforms View All »

Manufacturer Exemption from Punitive Damages: H.B. 2503 (2012)

Arizona|2012

Establishes reasonable liability rules for manufacturers, service providers and sellers

[…]

Establishes reasonable liability rules for manufacturers, service providers and sellers of products with respect to punitive damages when their product or service is in compliance with state or federal laws/regulations. Recognizes that the specific purpose of an award of punitive damages is to punish and deter unlawful conduct, and a defendant should not be punished in civil litigation when it is in compliance with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. Does not apply if it can be demonstrated that the defendant engaged in the following conduct: (1) the business withheld or misrepresented information utilized to gain regulatory approval; (2) the defendant mad an illegal payment to an official to obtain approval of the product or service; or, (3) the defendant sold a product or service after the government ordered the product or service to be removed from the marketplace.

[hide]

Punitive Damages Reform: FDA-Approved Drugs: SB 1453 (1989).

Arizona|1989

Establishes a government standards defense to punitive damages for FDA-approved

[…]

Establishes a government standards defense to punitive damages for FDA-approved drugs.

[hide]

Miscellaneous

Reforms View All »

Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony: S.B. 1189 (2010)

Arizona|2010

Adopted the Daubert standard for admitting expert witness testimony and

[…]

Adopted the Daubert standard for admitting expert witness testimony and expert evidence; Arizona Courts currently embrace the less stringent Frye standard. The Daubert standard requires the courts to consider four factors when examining the merits of expert testimony: (1) whether the expert’s technique or theory can be tested; (2) whether the theory has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory; and (4) whether the theory or technique has been generally accepted in the relevant field. This standard substantially decreases the probability of “junk science” being presented to juries, thus, affecting the outcome of a trial. It also serves as a filter that screens out ungrounded lawsuits from even reaching trial, which is especially important for manufacturers facing questionable product liability claims and health care providers facing questionable medical malpractice claims.

[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

Lear v. Fields, 245 P.3d 911 (Ariz. App. 2011).

Trespasser Liability Reform: S.B. 1410 (2012)

Arizona|2012

Codifies the common law regarding liability of a possessor of

[…]

Codifies the common law regarding liability of a possessor of land relating to an individual trespassing on the possessor’s land. Provides that except in a few specific instances, a possessor of real property, including an owner, lessee, or other occupant, or an agent of such owner, lessee, or other occupant, owes no duty of care to a trespasser except to refrain from harming the trespasser by a willful or wanton act.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Latest News

View all news

Trial Lawyers’ Rush Amendment Passes IL House in Early Morning Hours, Heads to Governor

Press Releases

ATRA’s statement on passage of Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360

IL Lawmakers Rush to Amend Bill for Trial Lawyers’ Gain, Ignore COVID-19 Liability Protections

Press Releases

ATRA’s statement on Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360

Statement Concerning Violent Mob Attack on U.S. Capitol

Press Releases

ATRA President Tiger Joyce released the following statement in response to the unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol building on January 6:

Appeal Bond Reform

Attorney General Sunshine / Private Attorney General Sunshine

Class Action Reform

Joint and Several Liability

Judgement Interest Reform

Jury Service Reform

Medical Liability Reform

Phantom Damages Reform

Punitive Damages

Miscellaneous

Latest News

View all news

Trial Lawyers’ Rush Amendment Passes IL House in Early Morning Hours, Heads to Governor

IL Lawmakers Rush to Amend Bill for Trial Lawyers’ Gain, Ignore COVID-19 Liability Protections

Statement Concerning Violent Mob Attack on U.S. Capitol

Congress Fails to Protect Small Businesses & Others from COVID-19 Liability

Courts in ‘Judicial Hellholes’ Less Likely to Abide by SCOTUS Precedent

Minnesota Slides Into ‘Judicial Hellholes’ Ranks Yet Again