Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3003 (2026)

Applicability

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-3003. Applicability

A. Except as provided in subsection B:

1. This chapter governs an agreement to arbitrate made on or after January 1, 2011.

2. This chapter governs an agreement to arbitrate made before January 1, 2011 if all the parties to the agreement or to the arbitration proceeding so agree in a record.

3. On or after January 1, 2011, this chapter governs an agreement to arbitrate whenever made.

B. Beginning January 1, 2011 this chapter shall not apply to an agreement to arbitrate any existing or subsequent controversy:

1. Between an employer and employee or their respective representatives.

2. Contained in a contract of insurance.

3. Between a national banking association or a federal savings association or its affiliate, subsidiary or holding company and any customer.

4. If the arbitration is conducted or administered by a self-regulatory organization as defined in the securities exchange act of 1934 (15 United States Code section 78c), the commodity exchange act (7 United States Code chapter 1) or regulations adopted under those acts.

C. An agreement to arbitrate that is described in subsection B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall be governed by chapter 9, article 1 of this title.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2012–2024 · leading case: J Hamblen v. Hon. hatch/winslow Mem'l, 398 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J Hamblen v. Hon. hatch/winslow Mem'l, 398 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “First, RUAA specifically provides that beginning in January 2011, “this chapter shall not apply to an agreement to arbitrate any existing or subsequent controversy .”
Dueñas v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., 336 P.3d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See AR.S. § 12-3003(A)(1). Under the Act, the general rule is that “[t]he court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. P'ship v. Robson, 294 P.3d 125 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION ¶ 8 In 2010, the Arizona legislature adopted the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“AZ-RUAA”).”
Escareno ex rel. Est. of Escareno v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C., 366 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “§§ 12-3001 through 12-3029, we cite to the statutes governing arbitration agreements at the time of the contract formation in this case, see § 12-3003(A)(1). 7 . Arizona generally applies the Restatement of Agency unless it is contrary to prior precedent.”
McGill v. Ball, 519 P.3d 729 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “This court has agreed with the plain, ordinary definition of “employee” (in an insurance contract interpretation case) as “an individual who works for the assured for compensation and is subject to his direction and control.”
Shield v. Lionheart, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0678 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2017). · cites it 10× “See A.R.S. § 12-3003(A)(1); see also Bruce E.”
Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02624 (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2024). · cites it 8× “[b]etween an employer and employee or their respective representatives,” 12 A.R.S. § 12-3003, it must first determine what legal test(s) for establishing “employee” 13 status should be used.”
Myers v. Racerworld LLC, No. 2:21-cv-01244 (D. Ariz. May 18, 2022). · cites it 5× “3 14 Plaintiffs finally argue that the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable under 15 Arizona law, which provides that the Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration Act 16 (“RUAA”) “shall not apply to an agreement to arbitrate any existing or subsequent 17 controversy between an…”
Mellcell v. Allen, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0530 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 17, 2022). · cites it 2× “¶14 “A court may refuse to confirm an arbitration award because of undue means only when the undue means are (1) not discoverable upon the exercise of due diligence prior to the arbitration, (2) materially related to an issue in the arbitration, and (3) established by clear and…”
Mills & Woods v. Weiss, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0403 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2022). · cites it 2× “3 Facebook posts, including a post dated August 4, 2020, about the death of Klain’s cat.”
Morris v. Pac. Dental Servs. LLC, No. 4:22-cv-00370 (D. Ariz. July 27, 2023). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-3003(B)(1) (emphasis added). 1 Congress’s full exercise of power under the Commerce Clause.”
Downey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. Ins., No. 2:24-cv-02261 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2024). · cites it 2× “Additionally, although the Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“ARUAA”) does not authorize the enforcement of an arbitration 27 agreement “[c]ontained in a contract of insurance,” A.R.S. § 12-3003(B)(2), the ARUAA clarifies that such an agreement may still be enforced under…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3003(A)(1): 4 cases
Dueñas v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., 336 P.3d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “See AR.S. § 12-3003(A)(1). Under the Act, the general rule is that “[t]he court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.”
Escareno ex rel. Est. of Escareno v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C., 366 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “§§ 12-3001 through 12-3029, we cite to the statutes governing arbitration agreements at the time of the contract formation in this case, see § 12-3003(A)(1). 7 . Arizona generally applies the Restatement of Agency unless it is contrary to prior precedent.”
McGill v. Ball, 519 P.3d 729 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “This court has agreed with the plain, ordinary definition of “employee” (in an insurance contract interpretation case) as “an individual who works for the assured for compensation and is subject to his direction and control.”
Shield v. Lionheart, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0678 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2017). “See A.R.S. § 12-3003(A)(1); see also Bruce E.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3003(A)(3): 2 cases
Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. P'ship v. Robson, 294 P.3d 125 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “DISCUSSION ¶ 8 In 2010, the Arizona legislature adopted the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“AZ-RUAA”).”
Mellcell v. Allen, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0530 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 17, 2022). “¶14 “A court may refuse to confirm an arbitration award because of undue means only when the undue means are (1) not discoverable upon the exercise of due diligence prior to the arbitration, (2) materially related to an issue in the arbitration, and (3) established by clear and…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3003(B)(1): 6 cases
J Hamblen v. Hon. hatch/winslow Mem'l, 398 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2017). “First, RUAA specifically provides that beginning in January 2011, “this chapter shall not apply to an agreement to arbitrate any existing or subsequent controversy .”
Shield v. Lionheart, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0678 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2017). “See A.R.S. § 12-3003(A)(1); see also Bruce E.”
McGill v. Ball, 519 P.3d 729 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “This court has agreed with the plain, ordinary definition of “employee” (in an insurance contract interpretation case) as “an individual who works for the assured for compensation and is subject to his direction and control.”
Myers v. Racerworld LLC, No. 2:21-cv-01244 (D. Ariz. May 18, 2022). “3 14 Plaintiffs finally argue that the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable under 15 Arizona law, which provides that the Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration Act 16 (“RUAA”) “shall not apply to an agreement to arbitrate any existing or subsequent 17 controversy between an…”
Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02624 (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2024). “[b]etween an employer and employee or their respective representatives,” 12 A.R.S. § 12-3003, it must first determine what legal test(s) for establishing “employee” 13 status should be used.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3003(B)(2): 3 cases
Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02624 (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2024). “[b]etween an employer and employee or their respective representatives,” 12 A.R.S. § 12-3003, it must first determine what legal test(s) for establishing “employee” 13 status should be used.”
Downey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. Ins., No. 2:24-cv-02261 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2024). “Additionally, although the Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“ARUAA”) does not authorize the enforcement of an arbitration 27 agreement “[c]ontained in a contract of insurance,” A.R.S. § 12-3003(B)(2), the ARUAA clarifies that such an agreement may still be enforced under…”
Tessler v. Progressive, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0397 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 24, 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.