Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona

22 Citing cases

  1. Country Club Townhomes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Goodman

    1 CA-CV 12-0268 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2013)

    I. Jurisdiction¶9 Goodman argues that Rule 54(b) certification was improper because the court did not fully resolve the breach of contract claim, citing "when a plaintiff is suing to vindicate one legal right and alleges several elements of damage, only one claim is presented and [Rule 54(b)] does not apply." Sisemore v. Farmers, 161 Ariz. 564, 566, 779 P.2d 1303, 1305 (App. 1989). We interpret this as an argument that the grant of summary judgment did not dispose of an entire claim, and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.

  2. McAlister v. Citibank

    171 Ariz. 207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 151 times
    Holding a promise of future conduct, such as honoring a mortgage commitment or promoting an employee, cannot sustain a negligent misrepresentation claim because the claim requires a misrepresentation or omission of a fact

    Since the order merely eliminated a potential remedy while not disposing of a single claim, it was improper for the trial court to include Rule 54(b) language. Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co., 161 Ariz. 564, 779 P.2d 1303 (App. 1989). Therefore, McAlister argues that until the trial court issued an order disposing of one of the substantive issues related to consequential damages, the partial summary judgment was not final and appealable.

  3. Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.

    168 Ariz. 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 94 times
    Finding Rule 54(b) certified judgment improper because, based on a single negligent act, "plaintiffs are limited to a single recovery against [defendant] no matter how many theories they may advance"

    The general rule is that an appeal lies only from a final judgment. E.g., Musa, 130 Ariz. at 312, 636 P.2d at 90; Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 161 Ariz. 564, 565, 779 P.2d 1303, 1304 (App. 1989); see also A.R.S. § 12-2101(B) (permitting appeal from final judgment). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction in this case because the order of dismissal was not a final judgment in this case.

  4. Adrian v. Onewest Bank

    No. 15-15583 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming denial of a stipulation to extend the discovery cutoff where the parties had not been diligent in pursuing discovery; "Although the parties styled their agreed extension as a stipulation to extend the discovery deadline, the district court properly treated it as a joint motion because the judge must consent to any modification of a scheduling order"

    Furthermore, a request for punitive damages is not a stand alone claim, but is instead "inextricably linked" to an underlying cause of action. See Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 779 P.2d 1303, 1305 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). The jury returned verdicts for OneWest on all of the Adrians' claims, so there is no liability to which the punitive damages could attach at this point.

  5. Jones v. Medtronic

    89 F. Supp. 3d 1035 (D. Ariz. 2015)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the plaintiff failed to allege fraud with the requisite particularity because the plaintiff alleged only that certain of Medtronic's articles persuaded some unspecified and unidentified "patients and doctors" to use Infuse in an off-label manner

    Punitive damages cannot stand alone as a separate claim. Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co., 196 Ariz. 123, 993 P.2d 1087, 1089 (Ariz.Ct.App.1999) (citing Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 161 Ariz. 564, 779 P.2d 1303, 1305 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989)). Plaintiff may seek punitive damages as a remedy, but not as a substantive claim for relief.

  6. Ford-Kelly v. AMEC Earth & Envtl., Inc.

    No. CV 12-08085-PCT-NVW (D. Ariz. Jun. 18, 2012)

    However, damages are available as a remedy for an independent substantive claim for wrongdoing; damages is not a separate cause of action. See, e.g., Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 161 Ariz. 564, 566, 779 P.2d 1303, 1305 (Ct. App. 1989) (stating request for punitive damages does not state a separate claim for relief under Arizona law). Leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires."

  7. Allen v. Quest Online, LLC

    No. CV-11-138-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. Sep. 22, 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Finding the defendant former employer's actions—negative press releases, interviews, and blog and internet postings—did not, by themselves, "demonstrate conduct . . . so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all bounds of decency"

    Damages cannot stand alone as a separate claim. See, e.g., Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 161 Ariz. 564, 566, 779 P.2d 1303, 1305 (App. 1989) (finding that a request for punitive damages does not state a separate claim for relief under Arizona law). Rather, these counts appear to be designed to invoke certain remedies.

  8. Nikfikr v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    No. CIV-03-0924-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz. Jan. 13, 2006)

    In regards to the punitive damages claim, although summary judgment solely as to punitive damages may be appropriate, "[t]he punitive damage "claim" and the bad faith claim are inextricably linked." Cf. Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 161 Ariz. 564, 566, 779 P.2d 1303, 1305 (App. 1989) (determining that request for punitive damages was not a separate cause of action, and commenting "[p]unitive damages may not be awarded unless it is first found that the insurance company acted in bad faith. This is not a "claim" that can be enforced separately from the bad faith claim.").

  9. Grabinski v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

    No. CV-04-1751-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz. Sep. 23, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    (Complaint, ¶ 15). A request for punitive damages does not state a separate claim for relief under Arizona law. Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Company of Arizona, 779 P.2d 1303, 1306 (Ariz.App. 1989). 4. Whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to file an amended complaint.

  10. Strickland v. Calton & Assocs.

    1 CA-CV 24-0336 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2025)

    See A.R.S. § 44-2003 (parties under the enumerated acts proscribed "shall be jointly and severally liable to the person who is entitled to maintain such action"); Laurence v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement &Power Dist., 255 Ariz. 95, 104, ¶ 35 (2023) (a plaintiff can still bring a respondeat superior claim against an employer even if the claim against the employee was dismissed without prejudice so long as it falls within the statute of limitations); Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 161 Ariz. 564, 566 (App. 1989) (a punitive damages claim is not a separate claim that can be enforced from the underlying tort claim). Given that the longest applicable limitations period for Strickland's claims is six years, any claim brought in 2023 based upon the 2014 sale is time-barred unless it was tolled.