Farmers Ins. Co. v. Tallsalt
| Decision Date | 17 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-97-0415-PR,CV-97-0415-PR |
| Citation | 192 Ariz. 129,962 P.2d 203 |
| Parties | FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation; and Michael Larson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross Appellants. v. Brian TALLSALT, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Trebon & Fine, P.C., Flagstaff by John Trebon for Brian Tallsalt.
¶1 We are asked to decide how the superior court should assess attorneys' fees on appeals from arbitration awards under Rule 7(f), Uniform Rules of Procedure for Arbitration, when the arbitrator has awarded one or both parties $0. We hold that in order to avoid paying the appellee's attorneys' fees, one who appeals an arbitration award of $0 must obtain a judgment in an amount greater than $0.
¶2 Cars driven by Brian Tallsalt and Michael Larson collided at an intersection in Flagstaff. Tallsalt was an uninsured motorist, and Larson carried uninsured motorist and property damage coverage with Farmers Insurance Company. Farmers paid Larson $30,392 for personal injuries and property damage, and filed a subrogation action against Tallsalt. Tallsalt counterclaimed for personal injuries and property damage. In compulsory arbitration, the arbitrator awarded no damages to either party. Farmers appealed and Tallsalt cross-appealed.
¶3 On trial de novo, a jury awarded Farmers $2,500, and awarded Tallsalt nothing. Both parties sought attorneys' fees under Rule 7(f), each arguing that their opponent had failed to obtain a judgment 10% more favorable than the arbitrator's award. The court awarded Farmers reduced attorneys' fees, but did not award Tallsalt his attorneys' fees. Both parties appealed.
¶4 The court of appeals held that there is a gap in Rule 7(f) whenever there is a successful appeal from an arbitration award of $0, because an award of $0 cannot be characterized as monetary relief within the meaning of the rule. The court also thought it was meaningless to describe any amount as more or less than 10% of zero. Believing it important to fill the gap, we granted review.
¶5 Rule 7(f), Uniform Rules of Procedure for Arbitration, which permits de novo appeal of arbitration awards to the superior court, provides in relevant part:
If the judgment on the trial de novo is not more favorable by at least 10% than the monetary relief, or more favorable than the other relief, granted by the arbitration award, the court shall order ... that the appellant pay ... the following costs and fees unless the Court finds on motion that the imposition of the costs and fees would create such a substantial economic hardship as not to be in the interests of justice:
....
(ii) To the appellee, those costs taxable in civil actions together with reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the trial judge for services necessitated by the appeal....
(emphasis added). Here, the arbitrator awarded each party $0. The court of appeals held that no fees could be assessed under Rule 7(f) because, in part, it believed that it is mathematically impossible to determine the percent by which an amount exceeds zero.
¶6 While "monetary relief" may suggest a number in excess of zero, zero is a number too. And if the purpose of the rule is to discourage appeals from reasonable arbitration awards, we serve that purpose better by not excluding zero from the definition of "monetary relief." We believe that the language "monetary relief ... granted by the arbitration award" is no different than the language "arbitration award," so that as long as the judgment exceeds the award by at least 10%, costs and fees are avoided.
¶7 If an award of $0 is monetary relief in the amount of $0, then Rule 7(f) provides the necessary guidance. If "A" represents the arbitration award being appealed, and "J" represents the judgment on appeal, then in order for the appellant not to pay the appellee's attorneys' fees under Rule 7(f), the following must be true when J does not equal A:
J >= A + .1(A)
In other words, the judgment on appeal must exceed the arbitration award by at least 10%, or else the appellant must pay the appellee's attorneys' fees. In the present case, then, Farmers' responsibility for Tallsalt's attorneys' fees may be expressed as follows:
$2,500 >= $0 + .1($0).
$2,500 >= $0.
Thus, Farmers obtained a judgment that satisfied Rule 7(f), and is not responsible for Tallsalt's attorneys' fees. Tallsalt, however, is responsible for Farmers' fees arising from his cross-appeal because he failed to improve his position at all, and J equals A.
¶8 Put more simply, in order for the appellant of an arbitration award of $0 to avoid paying the appellee's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murray v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 2 CA–CV 2014–0123.
...Ariz. 177, 180, 953 P.2d 921, 924 (App.1997) (verdict nonresponsive where counterclaim not addressed), vacated in part on other grounds, 192 Ariz. 129, 962 P.2d 203 (1998) ; cf. Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered, 229 Ariz. 193, ¶ 14, n. 1, 273 P.3d 645, 649, 650 n. 1 (2012) (v......
-
Freeman v. Sorchych
...that he believed "the road is not as safe" due to the changes made. 17 See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 77(f); see also Farmers Ins. Co. v. Tallsalt, 192 Ariz. 129, 130, ¶ 8, 962 P.2d 203, 204 (1998) ("[I]n order for the appellant of an arbitration award of $0 to avoid paying the appellee's attorneys' ......
-
Fisher v. Edgerton
...In a supplemental filing, Fisher relies on Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tallsalt, 191 Ariz. 177, 953 P.2d 921 (App.1997), vacated, 192 Ariz. 129, 962 P.2d 203 (1998), to argue that the term “other relief” in Rule 77(f) cannot mean allocations of comparative fault. We disagree. Tallsalt involved......
-
Fisher v. Edgerton
...In a supplemental filing, Fisher relies on Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tallsalt, 191 Ariz. 177, 953 P.2d 921 (App.1997), vacated, 192 Ariz. 129, 962 P.2d 203 (1998), to argue that the term “other relief” in Rule 77(f) cannot mean allocations of comparative fault. We disagree. Tallsalt involved......