Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1024 (2026)

Choice of remedy as waiver of alternate remedy

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. An employee, or his legal representative in event death results, who accepts compensation waives the right to exercise any option to institute proceedings in court against his employer or any co-employee acting within the scope of his employment, or against the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier or administrative service representative.

B. An employee, or his legal representative in event death results, who exercises any option to institute a proceeding in court against his employer waives any right to compensation.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 49 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Galloway v. Vanderpool, 69 P.3d 23 (Ariz. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Galloway v. Vanderpool, 69 P.3d 23 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 6× “, dissenting) (quoting A.R.S. § 23-1024). ¶ 12 The Jackson majority, however, rejected the plaintiffs’ contention: The section merely provides what occurs when “any option” has been exercised.”

Jackson v. Northland Constr. Co., 531 P.2d 144 (Ariz. 1975). · cites it 27× “An employee, or his legal representative in event death results, who accepts compensation waives the right to exercise any option to institute proceedings in court against his employer.”

Ream v. Wendt, 410 P.2d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 24× “In the Pressley decisions our Supreme Court determined that knowledge of alternative remedies and an intention to elect is necessary in order for A.R.S. § 23-1024 2 to be enforced insofar as an election to sue a third party tort-feasor is concerned.”

Anderson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 711 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 11× “A.R.S. § 23-1024 provides that such a choice may be made in the following manner: Choice of remedy as waiver of alternate remedy.”

Stoecker v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 984 P.2d 534 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 9× “¶ 6 The court also affirmed summary judgment on the contract claims, concluding the claims were barred by A.R.S. § 23-1024, which provides that workers’ compensation benefits shall be the exclusive remedy for an employee injured in the course and scope of employment.”

Sneed v. Belt, 635 P.2d 517 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 13× “Additionally, A.R.S. § 23-1024, in pertinent part, provides: “§ 23-1024.”

Aaa Cab Serv. Inc. v. Kerri S. Way, Special Fund Div./no Ins. Section, 141 P.3d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “6, § 39 (amending § 23-1024); see Sw. Coop. Wholesale v. Superior Court, 13 Ariz.”

Spear v. Indus. Comm'n, 562 P.2d 1099 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 9× “Industrial Commission, supra, that § 23-1024B applied to the uninsured employer options set forth in § 23-907.”

Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “The statutory scheme created by the legislature to implement the constitutional mandate, see A.R.S. §§ 23-901 to 23-1091 (1995 & Supp.”

Sw. Coop. Wholesale v. Superior Court, 477 P.2d 572 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 12× “” The other key statutory provision in the problem before us is A.R.S. § 23-1024, subsection A. Prior to January 1, 1969, this statutory subsection read as follows: "§ 23-1024.”

Connors v. Parsons, 818 P.2d 232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 12× “” (emphasis added) to the waiver provision of A.R.S. § 23-1024. Parsons argues that under A.”

Est. of Wesolowski v. Indus. Comm'n, 965 P.2d 60 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “Preemptive Suit ¶7 We first consider the Special Fund’s assertion that, because Clem filed a probate claim in superior court against the estate, his workers’ compensation claim is jurisdictionally barred by A.R.S. § 23-1024(B) (1995). We find instead that the Special Fund has…”

Show all 49 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1024(A) — 20 cases

Anderson v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 711 P.2d 595 (Ariz. 1985). “A.R.S. § 23-1024 provides that such a choice may be made in the following manner: Choice of remedy as waiver of alternate remedy.”

Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “The statutory scheme created by the legislature to implement the constitutional mandate, see A.R.S. §§ 23-901 to 23-1091 (1995 & Supp.”

Aaa Cab Serv. Inc. v. Kerri S. Way, Special Fund Div./no Ins. Section, 141 P.3d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “6, § 39 (amending § 23-1024); see Sw. Coop. Wholesale v. Superior Court, 13 Ariz.”

Mitchell v. Gamble, 86 P.3d 944 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).

Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 34 P.3d 375 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1024(B) — 4 cases

Est. of Wesolowski v. Indus. Comm'n, 965 P.2d 60 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Preemptive Suit ¶7 We first consider the Special Fund’s assertion that, because Clem filed a probate claim in superior court against the estate, his workers’ compensation claim is jurisdictionally barred by A.R.S. § 23-1024(B) (1995). We find instead that the Special Fund has…”

Uzoh v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 762 P.2d 600 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Special Fund Div./No Ins. Section v. Indus. Comm'n, 250 P.3d 564 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).

Scottsdale Ins. v. Monares, 734 P.2d 106 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).

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.