Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller

Decision Date17 November 1983
Docket NumberNo. 16690-PR,16690-PR
Citation673 P.2d 792,138 Ariz. 152
PartiesAMFAC 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.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

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.1The 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, § 5andAriz.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 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.2

Miller 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 known, of the defendant's negligent conduct, Morrison v. Acton, 68 Ariz. 27, 198 P.2d 590(1948);Nielson v. Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co., 15 Ariz.App. 29, 485 P.2d 853(1971), or when the plaintiff is first able to sue.Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc., 118 Ariz. 452, 577 P.2d 738(App.1978);Griesmer v. Griesmer, 116 Ariz. 512, 570 P.2d 199(App.1977)."

Miller asserts that agents of Amfac knew or should have known of his alleged negligence at the time of the trial or at the time the judgment was entered.Thus, he concludes, the statute of limitations began to run at one of those times and the instant suit is barred.However, this argument ignores the fact that Amfac had sustained no irrevocable damages and could not have sued at either of those times.In both Morrison and Nielson, the casesthis Court cited in Sato for the point that a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the defendant's negligent conduct, there was no question that damages did exist prior to the plaintiff's discovery of the defendant's negligence.In that circumstance, the cause of action accrues with the plaintiff's discovery.However, as noted above, even where a plaintiff has discovered actual negligence, if he has sustained no damages, he has no cause of action.Only when he has sustained damages is he able to sue.Our decision today is not inconsistent with Sato.

Lastly, Miller asserts that the opinion of the Court of Appeals"smacks of, if not amounts to[,] a denial of equal protection under the Arizona and Federal constitutions."Miller neither discusses this statement nor cites legal authority to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
70 cases
  • RDH Communications, Ltd. v. Winston
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • September 18, 1997
    ...representation rule that highlight the client's confidence in the attorney's ability and good faith), approved as supplemented, 138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (1983); Semenza v. Nevada Med. Liab. Ins. Co., 104 Nev. 666, 765 P.2d 184 (1988) (citing Amfac); Neylan v. Moser, 400 N.W.2d 538 (Iowa ......
  • Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1996
    ...case, 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......
  • Cecala v. Newman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • May 2, 2007
    ...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......
  • Sharts v. Natelson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • June 30, 1993
    ...710, 714 (Ct.App.1984) (distinguishing Amfac Distrib. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 155, 673 P.2d 795, approved as supplemented, 138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (1983), as limited to malpractice occurring during litigation). See Graham v. Holler, 499 So.2d 62 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986) (distinguishing......
  • Get Started for Free
7 books & journal articles
  • 14.17.1 Accrual of Negligence Claims.
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona AZ Tort Law Handbook Chapter 14 Insurance Producer Tort Liability (14.1 to 14.18.4)
    • Invalid date
    ...466 P.2d at 41. [233] Id. at 489-90, 466 P.2d at 40-41.[234] 857 F.2d 549, 558 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing to Amfac Distrib. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 152, 154, 673 P.2d 792, 794 (1983)).[235] Id. [236] Id.[237] Premium Cigars, 208 Ariz. at 571, 96 P.3d at 569, overruled on other grounds, Webb......
  • 3.3 Statute of Limitations
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona AZ Tort Law Handbook Chapter 3 Attorney Tort Liability (3.1 to 3.7.7)
    • Invalid date
    ...of causation and damage”). [19] Id. at 256, 902 P.2d at 1360.[20] Id. at 255, 902 P.2d at 1359 (citing Amfac Distrib. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 152, 153, 673 P.2d 792, 793 (1983).[21] Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310, 315, ¶ 17, 44 P.3d 990, 995 (2002).[22] Amfac Distrib. Corp. v. Miller, 138 A......
  • Ohio's "aggressive" attack on medical identity theft.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 24 No. 1, March 2011
    • March 22, 2011
    ...general rule that enhanced future risk of injury cannot form the sole basis for a negligence action. See Amfrac Distrib. Corp. v Miller, 673 P.2d 792, 793-94 (Ariz. 1983). As a side note, courts may consider an exception with regard to the effects of medical identity theft; however, this th......
  • 11:6 Civil Litigation
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona AZ Legal Malpractice Law Chapter 11 Statutes of Limitation/Other Defenses (§ 11:1 to § 11:10)
    • Invalid date
    ...malpractice claim—she may achieve final resolution either by exhaustion of the judicial process or by waiver.”[648] -----Note----- [636] 138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (Ariz. [637] See fact description in Amfac Dist. Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 155, 156, 673 P.2d 792 (App. 1983). [638] Id. [639......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT