 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Andress v. City of Chandler6/13/2000
. See Pima County by City of Tucson v. Maya Const. Co., 158 Ariz. 151, 154, 761 P.2d 1055, 1058 (1988).
Additionally, the Andresses' interpretation of A.R.S. section 12-821.01(C) would produce illogical results. Under their interpretation, plaintiffs claiming damages within the $50,000 jurisdictional limits of arbitration could file their lawsuits long before they ever serve public entities or their employee defendants with a notice of claim. Such an interpretation would clearly defeat the pre-litigation notification and settlement purposes of the notice of claim statute. See Crum, 186 Ariz. at 352, 922 P.2d at 317. We decline to interpret the statute in a manner that will defeat the legislative intent. See Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Bentley, 187 Ariz. 229, 233, 928 P.2d 653, 657 (App. 1996)(finding that " tatutes must be given a sensible construction that accomplishes the legislative intent and which avoids absurd results").
CONCLUSION
The Andresses' time to serve their notice of claim was not extended by A.R.S. section 12-821.01(C). Accordingly, they failed to serve their notice of claim on defendants within the time required by A.R.S. section 12-821.01(A), and the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm the judgment of the lower court.
MICHAEL D. RYAN, Judge CONCURRING: NOEL FIDEL, Judge WILLIAM F. GARBARINO, Judge
|