TAKE LESS. DO MORE. BE MORE

CASE: BARBARA SLOAN V. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, AND FARMERS GROUP, INC. ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS | JULY 13, 2021.

On July 13, 2021, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial court’s 2019 denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 59, and her motion for relief from judgment under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (Appeals 1 and 3), thus affirming the defense verdict. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which was denied.

This case arose in 2009 when Plaintiff’s house burned in a fire and she was criminally charged with arson. The insurer paid the claim in full after the charges were dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the insurer acted in bad faith. In July 2012, following a 22-day trial and four days of deliberation, the jury issued a verdict in favor of the Defense, agreeing the insurer had acted reasonably. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and from which she appealed (Appeal 1). The insurer prevailed on a second appeal (Appeal 2), but the case was remanded for additional findings. On remand, the trial court agreed with the insurer and affirmed the verdict, and Plaintiff appealed (Appeal 3).

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli attorneys Don Myles, Lori Voepel, and Ashley Villaverde Halvorson prevailed in three appeals on behalf of their client, Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona, affirming their 2012 defense verdict in a bad faith case.

On January 18, Kelsey Dressen, with the Law Offices of Choate & Wood, Farmers Insurance Exchange, began a three day trial in Maricopa County. Defendant admitted negligence, but disputed causation and damages. The parties stipulated to the medical bills that included two ER visits and physical therapy treatment, which totaled $17,537.90. Plaintiff also presented a lost wage claim that totaled $6,480. The defense disputed Plaintiff’s lost wages and ongoing pain and suffering. Plaintiff called his client, employer representative and physical therapist to testify. The defense did not call any witnesses. At close, Plaintiff suggested to the jury to award $132,000. The defense suggested $19,537. The jury deliberated for 30 minutes and returned a verdict of $23,000.

By Zara Torosyan, McCarthy Building Companies

Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1, states that cases should be “ construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. ” But are they?

The way we currently practice law is outdated. Times have changed in the last decade or two, but the way we practice law has not kept up with the times. Despite the many changes to the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, our community continues to practice the way it has been for many years now. For example, in 2018 Arizona introduced a new “Tier System, ” which limits discovery based on damages sought. Under these new rules, a Tier 1 case must be completed within 120 days. But when is the last time we have seen a case be completed, from start to finish, in 120 days?

As lawyers, we are not known to be wholly accepting of change, especially if it comes in a large wave; and we tend to react to change as a threat rather than an opportunity. The reason for refusing to change tends to be more of “this is the way we have been doing things” versus “this is the best way to do this thing.

One, but not the only, cause of the problem is the archaic billable requirement by many firms. While a well-reasoned measure for any business, the focus of the hourly requirements and goals are not very client friendly, and in fact quite the opposite. The outcome appears to be endless extension requests and multi-year litigation that ends up costing both sides more time and money than necessary.

Many folks cannot afford to hire a lawyer, and those that can, usually don’t view the cost as a good use of their money. Even with the evolving computer technology, artificial intelligence, and data analytics, the attitude and approach to litigation within the profession are not client oriented. Instead of the focus being an expedited, judicious, and painless experience, it is normally a 2-3 year slow painful process that mostly benefits the firms, not the clients.

I am not going to solve any problems in this one opinion article. But one thing we could all do better is instead of focusing on getting more clients, more cases, and more documents, we instead focus on litigating fewer cases. But litigating them better and faster. This may be controversial, but it should not be. If the goal as a lawyer is to best serve our clients, I suggest we may need to take less, do more, and be more.