CASESOFNOTE
029
Fernandez v . City of Phoenix
October 27 , 2015 Don Myles , Lori Voepel , Michele Molinario , and Justin Ackerman
DEFENSE WINS MOTION REGARDING DAMAGES IN FERNANDEZ V . CITY OF PHOENIX
JSH Defense team obtained a win for the City of Phoenix at the Superior Court of Arizona . Plaintiffs , assignees of former Phoenix police officer Richard Chrisman , brought a declaratory action against the City of Phoenix to enforce an $ 8.5 Million dollar Morris type agreement .
On summary judgment , Defendant Phoenix prevailed on the issue that the Phoenix City Code limits Plaintiffs ’ damages to Mr . Chrisman ’ s costs of defense in the underlying Federal Court case . The Court agreed with Defendant Phoenix that its obligations to Mr . Chrisman , and therefore Plaintiffs , cannot extend beyond the limits set by the Phoenix City Code . The parties then moved for clarification of the summary judgment order because the Plaintiffs believed that their damages consisted of the amount of attorneys ’ fees and costs of the defense incurred in the underlying matter , rather than the actual amount of attorneys ’ fees and costs paid . The Court agreed with Defendant Phoenix and found that Plaintiffs ’ are only entitled to recover reimbursement for actual amounts paid by Chrisman for his reasonable fees and expenses and not the amount incurred .
Redmond ( Zavala ) v . Mid-Century et al .
October 22 , 2015 Don Myles and Ashley Villaverde Halvorson
DON MYLES AND ASHLEY VILLAVERDE HALVORSON PREVAIL ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY ( FARMERS )
Don Myles and Ashley Halvorson recently prevailed on a motion for summary judgment for Mid-Century Insurance Company ( Farmers ), and were successful in limiting damages from a $ 3.3 million stipulated judgment to the $ 100,000 auto policy limit .
In Redmond ( Zavala ) v . Mid-Century et al ., the insured , Redmond , alleged Mid-Century breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing when it denied his claim for benefits on a cancelled auto policy . Redmond ’ s son was in an auto accident and injured plaintiff Zavala . Redmond was insured by Mid-Century but had cancelled his policy five days before the accident and had instead insured the vehicle with State Farm . The Redmonds were defended and indemnified by State Farm but sought additional coverage from Mid-Century , arguing they had never cancelled the Mid-Century policy . Mid-Century denied the claim in part based on a cancellation notice in the file signed by Redmond . Redmond denied signing a request to cancel his policy , claiming that the cancellation was forged by someone in his insurance agent ’ s office . Thereafter , Redmond assigned his bad faith claim to Zavala and stipulated to a $ 3.3 million judgment .
Mid-Century moved for summary judgment , arguing that its investigation of the claim and its decision to deny coverage was reasonable as a matter of law . In the alternative , Mid-Century moved for partial summary judgment , arguing that Zavala ’ s damages must be limited to the $ 100,000 policy limit because Mid-Century was never presented with , nor had it rejected , an offer to settle the case . Absent the refusal of a reasonable settlement offer , an insurer is not liable for the amount of a judgment that exceeds the policy limits . Rogan v . Auto-Owners Ins . Co ., 832 P . 2d 212 , 216 ( App . 1991 ). The Court agreed there was no evidence that a settlement offer was made , or that Mid-Century had refused such an offer . It therefore limited the damages to the limit of the applicable policy .
Bennett , Terri v . Pima County Community College
August 24 , 2015 Georgia Staton and Elizabeth Gilbert
ATTORNEYS OBTAIN UNANIMOUS DEFENSE VERDICT IN AN “ ENGLISH ONLY ” TRIAL
Georgia Staton and Elizabeth Gilbert obtained a unanimous verdict in favor of Pima County Community College in a highly contested two-week civil trial in Tuscon involving Arizona ’ s “ English Only ” Constitutional Provision .
Plaintiff , a nursing student at the Desert Vista Campus , claimed that her learning was disrupted when Spanishspeaking students would occasionally speak to each other in Spanish in class . Plaintiff claimed that the College failed to “ preserve , protect and enhance ” her rights as someone who used the English language . The College introduced evidence that her rights to use English at the College were not infringed upon and that there was no evidence that anyone ever spoke Spanish to her . Administrators confirmed that all instruction , written material , exams and classroom interactions were conducted in English .
Plaintiff confronted a student stating : “ This is America . You ’ re not in Mexico . Speak English .” She also referred to the Spanish language as “ gibberish .” Plaintiff became increasingly antagonistic referring to Hispanic students as “ spics , beaners and illegals .” She also threatened a Hispanic student stating that she had a black belt and could “ kick her ass .” She also intimidated her instructor and a staff member . Plaintiff was suspended from the nursing program because of her conduct . She appealed her suspension to the president of the Desert Vista Campus who upheld her suspension . Plaintiff was allowed to return to the nursing program in January 2014 if she agreed to comply with the College ’ s student conduct standards . She refused and , instead , sued the College .
The jury deliberated for less than three hours and returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the College .