Glazer v. State, 082118 AZSC, CV-17-0229-PR
|Opinion Judge:||JUSTICE BRUTINEL, JUDGE|
|Party Name:||Diana Glazer, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Arizona, Defendant/Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Dominic Draye, Solicitor General, Daniel P. Schaack (argued) and Fred M. Zeder, Assistant Attorneys General, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona John P. Leader (argued), The Leader Law Firm, Tucson; and Christopher J. Zachar, Zachar Law Firm, P.C., Pho...|
|Judge Panel:||JUSTICE BRUTINEL authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, and JUSTICES TIMMER, BOLICK, LOPEZ, and BERCH (Retired) joined.|
|Case Date:||August 21, 2018|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Arizona|
When asked to decide the rate at which interest on a $7.8 million judgment Plaintiff obtained against the State accrued pending appeal, the Supreme Court held that the interest rate prescribed by Ariz. Rev. Stat. 41-622(F) applied to the judgment. Plaintiff filed this negligence action against the state, and the jury awarded her $7.8 million. The State’s appeal was unsuccessful. While the... (see full summary)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry, Judge No. CV 2009-001261
Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One 241 Ariz. 572 (App. 2017)
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Dominic Draye, Solicitor General, Daniel P. Schaack (argued) and Fred M. Zeder, Assistant Attorneys General, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona
John P. Leader (argued), The Leader Law Firm, Tucson; and Christopher J. Zachar, Zachar Law Firm, P.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Diana Glazer
JUSTICE BRUTINEL authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, and JUSTICES TIMMER, BOLICK, LOPEZ, and BERCH (Retired) [*] joined.
JUSTICE BRUTINEL, JUDGE
¶1 In 2012, Diana Glazer obtained a $7.8 million judgment against the State. The State appealed, and we affirmed. See Glazer v. State (Glazer I), 237 Ariz. 160 (2015). Here, we are asked to decide the rate at which interest on that judgment accrued pending appeal. We hold that the interest rate prescribed by A.R.S. § 41-622(F) applies to the entire judgment against the State, including any portion for which the State may be reimbursed by its excess insurance coverage.
¶2 In 2007, a car accident badly injured Glazer and took the lives of her husband and daughter. Glazer sued the State for negligently failing to install a freeway median barrier or warn of its absence, see Glazer I, 237 Ariz. at 162 ¶ 3, and, in June 2012, a jury awarded her $7.8 million, see id. at 163 ¶ 7.
¶3 Following the State's unsuccessful appeal, the Arizona Department of Administration's risk management section directed that the judgment should be paid from the State's Risk Management Revolving Fund ("Revolving Fund"). An accounting technician, however, erroneously paid the judgment from the Construction Insurance Fund ("CIF"). When the mistake was discovered, the Department reimbursed the CIF from the Revolving Fund.1
¶4 The legislature created the Revolving Fund to pay claims against the State and to buy insurance, among other things. See § 41-622(A). It is funded by premiums paid by State agencies, insurance reimbursements, and other sources. The State self-insures for claims up to $7 million and purchases an umbrella policy to reimburse it for payments that exceed that amount.
¶5 In 2015, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment to resolve the calculation of post-judgment interest accrued during the pendency of the appeal. Glazer argued that, because the judgment had initially been paid from the CIF, it was subject to the rate of interest prescribed by A.R.S. § 44-1201(B) instead of the lower rate prescribed by § 41-622(F) for judgments paid from the Revolving Fund. The State maintained that the lower rate applied because the Revolving Fund had reimbursed the CIF. At the time, the § 44-1201(B) rate was 4.25% per year, and the § 41-622(F) rate was less than 1 %. The superior court granted judgment for the State.
¶6 The court of appeals affirmed in part, agreeing that the mistaken payment from the CIF had no bearing on the interest rate. Glazer II, 242 Ariz. at 394-95 ¶¶ 13-14, 17. The court noted that because the Revolving Fund and not the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP