Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, 16690-PR
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | GORDON; HOLOHAN |
| Citation | 673 P.2d 792,138 Ariz. 152 |
| Parties | AMFAC DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, a California corporation, d/b/a Amfac Electric Supply Co., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie L. MILLER and Mrs. Leslie L. Miller, his wife, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 16690-PR,16690-PR |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1983 |
Page 792
v.
Leslie L. MILLER and Mrs. Leslie L. Miller, his wife, Defendants-Appellees.
In Banc.
[138 Ariz. 153]
Page 793
Allen, McClennen & Fels, P.C. by Robert H. Allen, Phoenix, for plaintiff-appellant.Monbleau, Vermeire & Turley, P.C. by Kent E. Turley, Phoenix, for defendants-appellees.
GORDON, Vice Chief Justice:
The facts in this matter are fully set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 155, 673 P.2d 795 (1983), and will not be repeated here. The issue before us is when a cause of action accrues for legal malpractice which occurs during the course of litigation. 1 The Court of Appeals held that the cause of action in such a situation accrues "when the plaintiff knew or should reasonably have known of the malpractice and when the plaintiff's damages are certain and not contingent upon the outcome of an appeal." Id. at 156, 673 P.2d at 796. Defendant, attorney Miller, petitioned this Court to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5 and Ariz.R.Civ.App.P. 23. We agree with and approve the opinion of the Court of Appeals as supplemented herein.
This Court has recently considered the accrual of the cause of action in medical malpractice cases, DeBoer v. Brown, 138 Ariz. 168, 673 P.2d 912 (1983). There, we held that, to state a cause of action, the plaintiff-patient must have sustained some injury or damaging effect from the malpractice. We feel that the same is true in legal malpractice cases. Negligence alone is not actionable; actual injury or damages must be sustained before a cause of action in negligence is generated. We agree with [138 Ariz. 154]
Page 794
the authorities cited by the Court of Appeals that, in legal malpractice cases, the injury or damaging effect on the unsuccessful party is not ascertainable until the appellate process is completed or is waived by a failure to appeal. 2Miller argues that such a result is contrary to existing Arizona case law. He cites Sato v. Van Denburgh, 123 Ariz. 225, 227, 599 P.2d 181, 183 (1979), in which this Court stated that
"Arizona has long followed the rule that the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaufman v. Jesser, No. CV–12–459–PHX–LOA.
...party is not ascertainable until the appellate process is completed or is waived by a failure to appeal.”), approved as supplemented by,138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (Ariz.1983) (“Amfac II ”)). In affirming Amfac I, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a claim for legal malpractice “accrues wh......
-
Cecala v. Newman, No. CV 04-02612-PHX-NVW.
...is not ascertainable until the appellate process is completed or is waived by failure to appeal," Amfac Distrib. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 152, 153-54, 673 P.2d 792, 794 (1983) ("Amfac I"); Amfac Distrib. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 155, 157, 673 P.2d 795, 797 (Ct.App.1983) ("Amfac II") ("i......
-
Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CV-94-0505-PR
...points out, we have used the same rationale to apply a similar accrual date in legal malpractice cases. Amfac Dist. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (1983). In Amfac, we considered the accrual date for a cause of action for legal malpractice that occurred during the course of ci......
-
Schoenrock v. Tappe, No. 15484
...Malpractice, supra, § 391. See also Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 155, 673 P.2d 795 (App.1983), approved as supplemented, 138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (applying the discovery rule); Wall v. Lewis, 393 N.W.2d 758 (N.D.1986) (applying the discovery rule); McCormick v. Romans, 2......
-
Kaufman v. Jesser, No. CV–12–459–PHX–LOA.
...party is not ascertainable until the appellate process is completed or is waived by a failure to appeal.”), approved as supplemented by,138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (Ariz.1983) (“Amfac II ”)). In affirming Amfac I, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a claim for legal malpractice “accrues wh......
-
Cecala v. Newman, No. CV 04-02612-PHX-NVW.
...is not ascertainable until the appellate process is completed or is waived by failure to appeal," Amfac Distrib. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 152, 153-54, 673 P.2d 792, 794 (1983) ("Amfac I"); Amfac Distrib. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 155, 157, 673 P.2d 795, 797 (Ct.App.1983) ("Amfac II") ("i......
-
Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CV-94-0505-PR
...points out, we have used the same rationale to apply a similar accrual date in legal malpractice cases. Amfac Dist. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (1983). In Amfac, we considered the accrual date for a cause of action for legal malpractice that occurred during the course of ci......
-
Schoenrock v. Tappe, No. 15484
...Malpractice, supra, § 391. See also Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 155, 673 P.2d 795 (App.1983), approved as supplemented, 138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (applying the discovery rule); Wall v. Lewis, 393 N.W.2d 758 (N.D.1986) (applying the discovery rule); McCormick v. Romans, 2......