implied warranty claim in Arizona

2013See Sullivan, 231 Ariz. at 57 ¶ 14, 290 P.3d at 450 . ¶ 13 We are not persuaded that the economic loss doctrine should apply to bar the negligence claims simply because the Sulli-vans had a possible contractual remedy under an implied warranty claim.

2013See Sullivan, 231 Ariz. at 57 ¶ 14, 290 P.3d at 450 . ¶ 13 We are not persuaded that the economic loss doctrine should apply to bar the negligence claims simply because the Sulli-vans had a possible contractual remedy under an implied warranty claim.

2011Ltd., P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., 221 Ariz. 433 , 212 P.3d 125 (App.2009), vacated by 223 Ariz. 320 , 223 P.3d 664 (2010), the trial court concluded that North Peak’s complaint alleged “professional negligence” and such allegations “sound in tort, rather than contract.” As a result, the court dismissed the implied warranty claim. ¶ 11 Architect then filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining negligence claim, arguing it was barred by the statute of limitations.

2011Ltd., P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., 221 Ariz. 433 , 212 P.3d 125 (App.2009), vacated by 223 Ariz. 320 , 223 P.3d 664 (2010), the trial court concluded that North Peak’s complaint alleged “professional negligence” and such allegations “sound in tort, rather than contract.” As a result, the court dismissed the implied warranty claim. ¶ 11 Architect then filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining negligence claim, arguing it was barred by the statute of limitations.

2012Additionally, the court in Woodward rejected an argument that the implied warranty does not arise out of contract because it is “imposed by law.” 141 Ariz. at 515-16 , 687 P.2d at 1270-71 . ¶ 18 Because a claim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship is contractual in nature and because Article 18, Section 6, of the Arizona Constitution applies to tort claims rather than contract claims, there is no constitutional impediment in applying AR.S. § 12-552 to the Sullivans’ implied warranty claim.

2012Additionally, the court in Woodward rejected an argument that the implied warranty does not arise out of contract because it is “imposed by law.” 141 Ariz. at 515-16 , 687 P.2d at 1270-71 . ¶ 18 Because a claim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship is contractual in nature and because Article 18, Section 6, of the Arizona Constitution applies to tort claims rather than contract claims, there is no constitutional impediment in applying AR.S. § 12-552 to the Sullivans’ implied warranty claim.

2011Relying on Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners A-D, 155 Ariz. 519 , 747 P.2d 1218 (1987), Architect argued that “the essence of [North Peak’s] claim is one for negligence” and that “there is no contractually-based claim for breach of implied warranty insofar as design professionals are concerned.” According to Architect, North Peak asserted the implied warranty claim in an “attempt to convert an action for which attorneys’ fees are not recoverable into one in which attorneys’ fee[s] are recoverable.” ¶ 9 At oral argument on the motion, Architect referred to North Peak’s breach of implied warr

2011Relying on Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners A-D, 155 Ariz. 519 , 747 P.2d 1218 (1987), Architect argued that “the essence of [North Peak’s] claim is one for negligence” and that “there is no contractually-based claim for breach of implied warranty insofar as design professionals are concerned.” According to Architect, North Peak asserted the implied warranty claim in an “attempt to convert an action for which attorneys’ fees are not recoverable into one in which attorneys’ fee[s] are recoverable.” ¶ 9 At oral argument on the motion, Architect referred to North Peak’s breach of implied warr

2015Although the supreme court in Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. was not discussing the issue presented here — the existence of a duty of care — but instead, the economic loss doctrine, it essentially rejected this same argument: “We are not persuaded that the economic loss doctrine should apply to bar the negligence claims simply because the Sullivans had a possible contractual remedy under an implied warranty claim.” 232 Ariz. 344, 346, ¶ 13 , 306 P.3d 1, 3 (2013).

2015Although the supreme court in Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. was not discussing the issue presented here — the existence of a duty of care — but instead, the economic loss doctrine, it essentially rejected this same argument: “We are not persuaded that the economic loss doctrine should apply to bar the negligence claims simply because the Sullivans had a possible contractual remedy under an implied warranty claim.” 232 Ariz. 344, 346, ¶ 13 , 306 P.3d 1, 3 (2013).

2012See Lofts at Fillmore, 218 Ariz. at 575, ¶ 5 , 190 P.3d at 734.

2012The trial court agreed and awarded fees to Pulte. ¶ 47 Section 12-341.01(A) provides that the court may award fees to the successful party in “any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied.” The question presented is whether a breach of implied warranty claim arises out of a contract, express or implied, for purposes of § 12-341.01(A). ¶ 48 The fact that an implied warranty claim sounds in contract “does not compel the conclusion that it ‘arises out of contract’ within the meaning of § 12-341.01(A).” North Peak, 227 Ariz. at 170, ¶ 26 , 254 P.3d at 409 .

2012The trial court agreed and awarded fees to Pulte. ¶ 47 Section 12-341.01(A) provides that the court may award fees to the successful party in “any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied.” The question presented is whether a breach of implied warranty claim arises out of a contract, express or implied, for purposes of § 12-341.01(A). ¶ 48 The fact that an implied warranty claim sounds in contract “does not compel the conclusion that it ‘arises out of contract’ within the meaning of § 12-341.01(A).” North Peak, 227 Ariz. at 170, ¶ 26 , 254 P.3d at 409 .

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2006Compare Perry, 814 N.E.2d at 644 n. 6 (implied warranty under MMWA limited by state law that requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant), and Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 247-49 (2nd Cir.1986) (under state law, lack of privity can defeat an implied warranty claim), with Razor, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 813 N.E.2d at 257 (when a manufacturer provides an express warranty to a consumer, the MMWA provides that the express warranty provides sufficient privity for a consumer to bring a UCC claim of implied warranty against the manufacturer), Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 115

2005We held that insurance bad faith derives from an insurance contract and “a stranger to the contract” cannot bring an action under it absent an assignment. 199 Ariz. at 254, ¶ 21 , 17 P.3d at 99 . ¶ 22 The Association nevertheless contends that privity was not required for an implied warranty claim in Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, 139 Ariz. 184 , 677 P.2d 1292 (1984).

2005We held that insurance bad faith derives from an insurance contract and “a stranger to the contract” cannot bring an action under it absent an assignment. 199 Ariz. at 254, ¶ 21 , 17 P.3d at 99 . ¶ 22 The Association nevertheless contends that privity was not required for an implied warranty claim in Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, 139 Ariz. 184 , 677 P.2d 1292 (1984).

1979The basis for imposing implied warranties on new home construction was aptly stated in Tavares v. Horstman, 542 P.2d 1275, 1279 (Wyo.1975): “Since World War II homes have been built in tremendous numbers.