 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Deloach v. Alfred6/9/1998
En Banc
Special Action from the Superior Court in Pima County The Honorable Michael Alfred, Judge
AFFIRMED
Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division Two ___ Ariz. ____, 952 P.2d 320 (1997)
VACATED
We granted review to determine which state's statute of limitations applies to an Arizona case arising out of a Tennessee automobile accident. The plaintiff is a California resident; one defendant is an Arizona resident, and the other a Tennessee resident. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. VI, Section 5(3).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts are undisputed. Kevin Hamblin ("Plaintiff"), a California resident, was injured in a June 19, 1994, automobile accident in Tennessee. He was a passenger in a car operated by Kevin DeLoach that collided with a car owned by Budget Rent-A-Car and driven by William Moore. On June 19, 1996, Plaintiff filed the tort action in Arizona against Budget Rent-A-Car of Memphis, Moore and his wife, bothTennessee residents, and DeLoach and his wife ("Petitioners"), both Arizona residents. Budget has been dismissed from the action. The Moores have neither answered nor otherwise appeared.
Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment based on Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations for tort actions. Tenn.Code Ann. Section 28-3-104. They argued that the locus of the accident, rather than the forum, determines which statute of limitations applies. Plaintiff opposed the motion, urging the trial Judge to apply this state's two-year statute of limitations to his claim against Petitioners. A.R.S. Section 12-542. He argued that Arizona applies its own law to procedural matters such as limitations provisions. The Judge agreed and denied the motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals thereafter accepted jurisdiction of Petitioners' request for special action relief.
The threshold question concerned the proper analysis for deciding which statute of limitations applied. There are at least three approaches to deciding choice of law questions involving conflicting statutes of limitations. Under the traditional approach, statutes of limitations are viewed as presumptively procedural, in which case the law of the forum applies. Arizona has historically applied this approach. See, e.g., Eschenhagen v. Zika, 144 Ariz. 213, 696 P.2d 1362 (App. 1985). This approach was adopted in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Sections 142 and 143 (1971) (hereafter Restatement). The Restatement was revised in 1988, however, to employ a type of interest analysis approach recognized by the drafters as the "emerging trend" among courts. Under that approach, a court must analyze conflicts between statutes of limitations, emphasizing the significance of the relationship between the forum and the claims. See Restatement Section 142 (1988) (citing Restatement of Conflict of Laws Section 6 (1971)); New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Gourdeau Constr. Co., 647 N.E.2d 42 (Mass. 1995). A third approach exists under Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act Section 2. Under that act, not adopted in Arizona, if a claim is substantively based on the law of another state, the limitations period of that state applies. See, e.g., Ellis v. Barto, 918 P.2d 540, 542 (Wash. App. 1996). The court of appeals followed the interest analysis approach of revised Restatement Section 142. DeLoach v. Alfred, ___ Ariz. ____, ____, 952 P.2d 320, 323-24 (App. 1997). The parties do not challenge the use of that section.
Applying revised section 142 to the facts in this case, the court of appeals concluded that Arizona has no substantial interest in the case, Tennessee's relations
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|