Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Andress v. City of Chandler
Citations: 7 P.3d 121; 198 Ariz. 112; 323 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 21; 2000 Ariz. App. LEXIS 89Docket: 1 CA-CV 99-0443
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; June 13, 2000; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Suzanne and Robert Andress filed a negligence lawsuit against the City of Chandler and Donald Clark after Suzanne was injured in a vehicle collision with a street sweeper operated by Clark. Their claim, involving damages under $50,000, was subject to arbitration as stipulated by A.R.S. 12-133. However, the Andresses did not file a required notice of claim under A.R.S. 12-821.01(A) until after arbitration had concluded, which prompted the defendants to seek summary judgment on the grounds of the untimely notice. The Andresses contended that, according to A.R.S. 12-821.01(C), the notice was not due until after receiving a final arbitration decision. The arbitrator initially denied the defendants' motion, resulting in an award for the Andresses, but upon appeal to the superior court, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, determining that the notice was indeed time-barred due to the Andresses failing to serve it within 180 days of the claim's accrual on September 10, 1997. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, clarifying that the arbitration statute did not extend the filing deadline for the notice of claim. The Andresses acknowledge that their cause of action began on the date of the accident, but they argue that A.R.S. 12-821.01(C) extended their time to serve a notice of claim due to their claim being subject to the dispute resolution provisions of A.R.S. 12-133(A). They believe the time for serving the notice was extended until after exhausting the dispute resolution process. However, the court disagrees, stating that this interpretation contradicts the notice of claim statute's purpose, which aims to allow public entities to investigate potential liability and resolve claims before litigation. The court emphasizes that A.R.S. 12-821.01(C) is intended to extend the notice of claim deadline only when pre-litigation arbitration or administrative procedures must be exhausted. Since the arbitration statute cited by the Andresses only comes into play after a lawsuit is filed, it does not apply to pre-litigation claims. Thus, the notice of claim statute serves a different purpose than A.R.S. 12-133, which pertains to resolving disputes after lawsuits are initiated, rather than before. The Andresses' interpretation of A.R.S. 12-821.01(C) could lead to illogical outcomes by allowing plaintiffs to initiate lawsuits for damages under $50,000 before notifying public entities or their employees of a claim, undermining the notice of claim statute's intent for pre-litigation notification and settlement. The court emphasizes the need to interpret statutes sensibly to fulfill legislative intent and avoid unreasonable results, referencing Crum and Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Bentley. Consequently, the court concluded that the Andresses did not extend their notice of claim period under A.R.S. 12-821.01(C), failing to serve it timely as required by A.R.S. 12-821.01(A), which justified the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The judgment is affirmed, with concurrence from Judges Noel Fidel and William F. Garbarino.