Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1265 (2026)

Nonlimitation of rights; refund or replacement not required if certain procedures not followed; attorney fees

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. If a manufacturer has established or participates in an informal dispute settlement procedure which complies in all respects with 16 Code of Federal Regulations part 703, section 44-1263 relating to refunds or replacement does not apply to any consumer who has not first resorted to such a procedure.

B. A consumer shall begin an action under this article within six months following the earlier of expiration of the express warranty term or two years or twenty-four thousand miles following the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to the consumer, whichever is earlier. If a consumer prevails in an action under this article, the court shall award the consumer reasonable costs and attorney fees.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2023 · leading case: Moedt v. Gen. Motors Corp., 60 P.3d 240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moedt v. Gen. Motors Corp., 60 P.3d 240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 19× “§ 2311 (b)(1), the court in all probability awarded fees pursuant to the Lemon Law so we consider whether Moedt is a prevailing party according to the Arizona statute.”

Hillery v. Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Ariz. 2004). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-1265(B). Georgie Boy asserts that it provided a one-year limited warranty which provided coverage pursuant to its terms for one year from the date of purchase or the first fifteen thousand miles, whichever occurs first.”

Sean Bonnette v. Mg Fin. Enter., LLC A & G Car Sales, LLC (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 44-1265(B). However, Bonnette did not seek attorney fees under that statute, despite its applicability and mandatory nature.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1265(B) — 3 cases

Moedt v. Gen. Motors Corp., 60 P.3d 240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 2311 (b)(1), the court in all probability awarded fees pursuant to the Lemon Law so we consider whether Moedt is a prevailing party according to the Arizona statute.”

Hillery v. Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Ariz. 2004). “A.R.S. § 44-1265(B). Georgie Boy asserts that it provided a one-year limited warranty which provided coverage pursuant to its terms for one year from the date of purchase or the first fifteen thousand miles, whichever occurs first.”

Sean Bonnette v. Mg Fin. Enter., LLC A & G Car Sales, LLC (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” A.R.S. § 44-1265(B). However, Bonnette did not seek attorney fees under that statute, despite its applicability and mandatory nature.”

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.