 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Duke v. Cochise County10/31/1996
ts point out that Rule 68 does not proscribe either joint offers or offers of a single amount for multiple claims. However, in providing that "any party may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be entered in the action in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the offer," the rule speaks in the singular. (Emphasis added.) When the language of a statute or rule is unambiguous and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute's construction. Gonzalez v. Satrustegui, 178 Ariz. 92, 870 P.2d 1188 (App. 1993). Moreover, comparable rules from Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, which also speak in the singular, have been construed uniformly to render unapportioned joint offers invalid.
Appellants also point out that a wrongful death action on behalf of multiple beneficiaries constitutes one claim for damages with one plaintiff and one judgment, citing Begay v. City of Tucson, 148 Ariz. 505, 715 P.2d 758 (1986). Even so, Duke's offer failed to apportion the amounts sought on her multiple claims for wrongful death, emotional distress, and false imprisonment, making it impossible for the County to assess its chances of doing better at trial against each claim. Appellants fail to cite any cases, nor are we aware of any, upholding unapportioned multiple claim offers under circumstances analogous to this case. We thus conclude that the better rule is to hold unapportioned joint offers of judgment invalid for purposes of imposing sanctions under Rule 68(d), regardless of the outcome at trial.
Disposition
The trial court's order vacating the verdict awarding damages for Mary Duke's emotional distress and granting judgment n.o.v. in favor of the County is reversed and the action is remanded to the trial court with orders to reinstate the jury's verdict on that claim and enter judgment accordingly. We vacate the sanctions imposed against the County pursuant to Rule 68, Ariz. R. Civ. P. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge
Concurring
JAMES D. HATHAWAY, Judge
JOHN PELANDER, Judge
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.
|
|