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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3003 (2026)

Applicability

✓ current as of May 2026
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 Et Ux v. Hon. hatch/winslow Mem'l, 398 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J Hamblen Et Ux 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.”
Shield v. Lionheart (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “See A.R.S. § 12-3003(A)(1); see also Bruce E.”
Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc. (D. Ariz. 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.”
McGill v. Ball (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “Employment Exception Argument ¶19 Ball argues that the arbitration confirmation statutes do not apply, asserting that McGill was Ball’s employee, and that the statutes do not apply to arbitration agreements between employers and employees.”
Myers v. Racerworld LLC (D. Ariz. 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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-3003(A)(3). Defendants essentially raise two statutory arguments: Preferred Investments obtained the Award by fraud, § 12-3023(A)(1), and the arbitrator exceeded his powers, § 12-3023(A)(4).”
Mills & Woods v. Weiss (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “, when (given the dates involved) the applicable statute is Arizona’s Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, see A.R.S. § 12-3003. The parties, however, have not asserted that the substantive provisions of the revised act, which govern this dispute, differ in any meaningful way.”
Morris v. Pac. Dental Servs. LLC (D. Ariz. 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. (D. Ariz. 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.”
Shield v. Lionheart (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “See A.R.S. § 12-3003(A)(1); see also Bruce E.”
McGill v. Ball (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “Employment Exception Argument ¶19 Ball argues that the arbitration confirmation statutes do not apply, asserting that McGill was Ball’s employee, and that the statutes do not apply to arbitration agreements between employers and employees.”
— 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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “A.R.S. § 12-3003(A)(3). Defendants essentially raise two statutory arguments: Preferred Investments obtained the Award by fraud, § 12-3023(A)(1), and the arbitrator exceeded his powers, § 12-3023(A)(4).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3003(B)(1) — 6 cases
J Hamblen Et Ux 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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “See A.R.S. § 12-3003(A)(1); see also Bruce E.”
Myers v. Racerworld LLC (D. Ariz. 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. (D. Ariz. 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.”
McGill v. Ball (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “Employment Exception Argument ¶19 Ball argues that the arbitration confirmation statutes do not apply, asserting that McGill was Ball’s employee, and that the statutes do not apply to arbitration agreements between employers and employees.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-3003(B)(2) — 3 cases
Silman v. Swift Transp. Inc. (D. Ariz. 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. (D. Ariz. 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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 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.