 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Andress v. City of Chandler6/13/2000
section 12-821.01(C) extended their time for serving a notice of claim. That provision extends the accrual date of any claim subject to "binding or non-binding dispute resolution process . . . pursuant to a statute, ordinance, resolution, administrative or governmental rule or regulation, or contractual term" until after the dispute resolution process has "been exhausted." A.R.S. § 12-821.01(C). The Andresses contend that because their claim was subject to the dispute resolution provisions of A.R.S. section 12-133(A), their time to serve the defendants with a notice of claim was extended by the exhaustion of remedies provision set forth in A.R.S. section 12-821.01(C). We disagree because the Andresses' contention conflicts with the purpose of the notice of claim statute and would lead to illogical results.
The court's ultimate goal in interpreting a statute is to give effect to the legislative intent underlying it. See Hayes v. Continental Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264, 268, 872 P.2d 668, 672 (1994). In ascertaining that intent, we consider the statute's context, its language, its effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose. See id.
Although at first blush the language of A.R.S. section 12-821.01(C) could be interpreted as the Andresses suggest, the purpose behind the notice of claim statute does not support this interpretation. The purpose of a notice of claim "is to allow the public employee and his employer to investigate and assess their liability, to permit the possibility of settlement prior to litigation and to assist the public entity in financial planning and budgeting." Crum v. Superior Court, 186 Ariz. 351, 352, 922 P.2d 316, 317 (App. 1996). The notice of claim statute serves to give public entities notice of a claim and thereby provides an opportunity to resolve the claim before a lawsuit is ever filed.
In light of the purpose of the notice of claim statute, we interpret A.R.S. section 12-821.01(C) as merely extending the time to serve a notice of claim when alternative dispute or administrative review procedures must or should be exhausted before the filing of a complaint. This interpretation of subsection (C) allows parties to exhaust any statutorily or contractually mandated pre-litigation arbitration or administrative remedies before resorting to the formal legal process. Yet this interpretation still comports with the legislative intent behind subsection (A), which is to provide public entities and employees with notice of such claims and the opportunity to settle them before the matters proceed to litigation.
The arbitration statute upon which the Andresses rely is not even triggered until after a lawsuit is filed. See A.R.S. § 12-133(A)(2); Local R. of Practice for the Super. Cts. (Maricopa County) 3.10; Ariz. Unif. R. Arb. 1(e) (stating that a plaintiff must file a certificate of compulsory arbitration at the time of filing the complaint, and must seasonably amend their certificate if the case's arbitrability changes during the proceedings). Section 12-133 provides for the submission of lawsuits to arbitration when the amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional limits of $50,000. See A.R.S. § 12-133(A)(1); Local R. of Practice for the Super. Cts. (Maricopa County) 3.10(a). This statute has no application to the pre-litigation claims that are the subject of the notice of claim statute.
Unlike the notice of claim provisions, section 12-133 does not address the pre-litigation resolution of claims. Rather, in an effort to dispose of controversies by means that are often speedier and less expensive than normal litigation it attempts to divert to non-binding arbitration certain lawsuits that have already been filed
Page 1 2 3 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|