Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood

9/29/2004

tervenors' filing of their complaint-in-intervention in this DRA before the Gerardo judgments had been entered to the filing of a notice of appeal before final judgment is entered. In the case of such a " remature appeal," the notice of appeal "simply takes effect when the clerk of the court enters the final judgment." Performance Funding, LLC v. Barcon Corp., 197 Ariz. 286, 5, 3 P.3d 1206, 1208 (App. 2000). "Arizona courts disfavor hypertechnical arguments," and instead prefer to dispose of cases on their merits. Guinn v. Schweitzer, 190 Ariz. 116, 119, 945 P.2d 837, 840 (App. 1997); see also Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins. Co., 182 Ariz. 586, 590, 898 P.2d 964, 968 (1995) ("The defense of statute of limitations is never favored by the courts.").


TAA/City's and Intervenors' Morris agreement preceded the complaint-inintervention and clearly was contingent upon a final judgment being entered on it. See Waddell, 207 Ariz. 529, 20, 88 P.3d 1141, 1146. We conclude that, under the circumstances, Intervenors were not required to wait until the Gerardo judgments had been entered before intervening and asserting their third-party claims in this action. To rule otherwise would elevate form over substance, which the law seeks to avoid. See Bryan v. Riddel, 178 Ariz. 472, 477, 875 P.2d 131, 136 (1994); Washburn v. Pima County, 206 Ariz. 571, 81 P.3d 1030 (App. 2003); cf. Yank v. Juhrend, 151 Ariz. 587, 590, 729 P.2d 941, 944 (App. 1986) ("A forfeiture is generally abhorred by the law.").


That the entry of judgment need not precede commencement of the third-party action, however, does not resolve the second point AAU raises -- whether Intervenors' complaint-in-intervention constitutes an action on the Gerardo judgments and therefore renews them pursuant to § 12-1611. Rather, the answer to that question depends on whether a judgment creditor such as Intervenors can bring an action on a judgment only against the same party against whom judgment originally was entered. More specifically, whether Intervenors' complaint-in-intervention in this DRA can be construed as an action on the Gerardo judgments, thereby renewing them pursuant to § 12-1611, turns on the question of whether an action brought against an insurer can constitute an action seeking enforcement of a judgment entered against one of its insureds. The parties have not cited, nor have we found, any Arizona case that answers this question and, therefore, we turn to out-of-state authority for guidance.


"Every judgment gives rise to a common law cause of action to enforce it, called an action upon a judgment." Burshan v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 805 So. 2d 835, 840-41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). "The 'main purpose of an action on a judgment is to obtain a new judgment which will facilitate the ultimate goal of securing the satisfaction of the original cause of action.'" Id. at 841, quoting Adams v. Adams, 691 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997). Generally, an action on a judgment can only be brought against the defendant of record in the judgment and not against an entity or person not named in the original judgment. Peterson v. Superior Bank FSB, 611 N.E.2d 1139, 1141 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993); see also 47 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 990 (1995). But that general rule has some exceptions. For instance, an action against a judgment debtor's successor-in-interest is an action on the judgment. Peterson, 611 N.E.2d at 1141. And, some courts have held that an action against a corporation's sole shareholder or alter ego is an action on a judgment previously obtained against the corporation itself. See Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers S., Inc., 933 F.2d 131, 142-43 (2d Cir. 1991); Turner Murphy Co. v. Specialt

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 

Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE