A. In any product liability action where the manufacturer refuses to accept a tender of defense from the seller, the manufacturer shall indemnify the seller for any judgment rendered against the seller and shall also reimburse the seller for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the seller in defending such action, unless either paragraph 1 or 2 applies:
1. The seller had knowledge of the defect in the product.
2. The seller altered, modified or installed the product, and such alteration, modification or installation was a substantial cause of the incident giving rise to the action, was not authorized or requested by the manufacturer and was not performed in compliance with the directions or specifications of the manufacturer.
B. If a judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a seller is granted indemnity against a manufacturer, the plaintiff shall first attempt to satisfy the judgment by levying execution upon the manufacturer in this state or in the state where the manufacturer's principal place of business is located and by making demand upon any liability insurance carrier of the manufacturer whose identity is known to plaintiff before attempting to collect the judgment from the seller or the seller's liability insurance carrier. The return of a writ of execution partially or wholly unsatisfied or the failure of the manufacturer's insurance carrier to pay the judgment upon demand shall be deemed full compliance with the plaintiff's obligation to attempt to collect from the manufacturer.
C. In any product liability action the manufacturer of the product shall be indemnified by the seller of the product for any judgment rendered against the manufacturer and shall also reimburse the manufacturer for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending such action, if the seller provided the plans or specifications for the manufacture or preparation of the product and such plans or specifications were a substantial cause of the product's alleged defect and if the product was manufactured in compliance with and according to the plans or specifications of the seller. If a judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a manufacturer is granted indemnity against a seller, the plaintiff shall first attempt to satisfy the judgment by levying execution upon the seller in this state or in the state where the seller's principal place of business is located and by making demand upon any liability insurance carrier of the seller whose identity is known to plaintiff before attempting to collect the judgment from the manufacturer or manufacturer's liability insurance carrier. The return of a writ of execution partially or wholly unsatisfied or the failure of the seller's insurance carrier to pay the judgment upon demand shall be deemed full compliance with the plaintiff's obligation to attempt to collect from the seller. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply if the manufacturer had knowledge or with the exercise of reasonable and diligent care should have had knowledge of the defect in the product.
Notes of Decisions
Unique Equip. Co. v. TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc., 3 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 10× “To the extent that an employer may be faulted for an unreasonable danger to its employees that lurks within its own design or specifications for a product that is intended exclusively for in-house use, that fault arises within the context of the employment relationship, not…”
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 142 P.3d 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “¶ 24 Allowing fault to be assessed against the participants in the chain of distribution of a defective product does not render the indemnification rights between sellers and manufacturers created by A.R.S. § 12-684 (2003) superfluous, 9 as State Farm also argues.”
McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra, 799 P.2d 901 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 16× “The first issue presented is whether Tecumseh is entitled to recover any costs and attorney’s fees from Mepco pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-684. A.R.S. § 12-684 states, in pertinent part: A.”
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp., 197 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 23× “2 DISCUSSION ¶ 5 Based on A.R.S. § 12-684, Heatec argues the jury’s verdict on the statutory indemnity claim was insufficient because the verdict did not include reimbursement for Heatec’s settlement payment to Vulcan.”
Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 786 P.2d 939 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 2× “§ 12-683, pertaining to the so-called “state of the art” defense, alteration or modification as a defense, and abuse of the product); provide for indemnification between manufacturers and sellers (A.R.S. § 12-684); regulate the contents of ad damnum clauses (A.”
W. Agric. Ins. v. Chrysler Corp., 6 P.3d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “” ¶ 25 Under Arizona law, Chrysler, as the manufacturer, must indemnify the dealership, as the seller, for any judgment rendered against the dealership and reimburse any fees and costs incurred by the dealership in defending the action, unless the dealership knew of the defect…”
Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., Inc., 737 P.2d 405 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “In a consolidated appeal, defendant Richard Equipment Company, the retailer of the product, seeks to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees from defendant Kelley Company, the manufacturer of the product, under A.R.S. § 12-684(A). That section reads: In any product liability…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-684(A) — 11 cases
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 142 P.3d 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“¶ 24 Allowing fault to be assessed against the participants in the chain of distribution of a defective product does not render the indemnification rights between sellers and manufacturers created by A.R.S. § 12-684 (2003) superfluous, 9 as State Farm also argues.”
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp., 197 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“2 DISCUSSION ¶ 5 Based on A.R.S. § 12-684, Heatec argues the jury’s verdict on the statutory indemnity claim was insufficient because the verdict did not include reimbursement for Heatec’s settlement payment to Vulcan.”
McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra, 799 P.2d 901 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“The first issue presented is whether Tecumseh is entitled to recover any costs and attorney’s fees from Mepco pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-684. A.R.S. § 12-684 states, in pertinent part: A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-684(A)(1) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-684(A)(2) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-684(C) — 2 cases
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 142 P.3d 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“¶ 24 Allowing fault to be assessed against the participants in the chain of distribution of a defective product does not render the indemnification rights between sellers and manufacturers created by A.R.S. § 12-684 (2003) superfluous, 9 as State Farm also argues.”
Unique Equip. Co. v. TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc., 3 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“To the extent that an employer may be faulted for an unreasonable danger to its employees that lurks within its own design or specifications for a product that is intended exclusively for in-house use, that fault arises within the context of the employment relationship, not…”
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.