owner test in Arizona

2009Under this theory, if “goods have no market value, their actual worth to the owner is the test, and when they have but little or no market value, and are of special value to the owner, he may recover that.” Jones v. Stanley, 27 Ariz. 381, 385 , 233 P. 598, 599 (1925); see also Devine v. Buckler, 124 Ariz. 286, 287 , 603 P.2d 557, 558 (App.1979).

2009Under this theory, if “goods have no market value, their actual worth to the owner is the test, and when they have but little or no market value, and are of special value to the owner, he may recover that.” Jones v. Stanley, 27 Ariz. 381, 385 , 233 P. 598, 599 (1925); see also Devine v. Buckler, 124 Ariz. 286, 287 , 603 P.2d 557, 558 (App.1979).

2009Under this theory, if “goods have no market value, their actual worth to the owner is the test, and when they have but little or no market value, and are of special value to the owner, he may recover that.” Jones v. Stanley, 27 Ariz. 381, 385 , 233 P. 598, 599 (1925); see also Devine v. Buckler, 124 Ariz. 286, 287 , 603 P.2d 557, 558 (App.1979).

2009Under this theory, if “goods have no market value, their actual worth to the owner is the test, and when they have but little or no market value, and are of special value to the owner, he may recover that.” Jones v. Stanley, 27 Ariz. 381, 385 , 233 P. 598, 599 (1925); see also Devine v. Buckler, 124 Ariz. 286, 287 , 603 P.2d 557, 558 (App.1979).

2018Cf. Jones, 565 U.S. at 409-10 (distinguishing Jones’s ability to challenge GPS monitoring with device installed while he possessed vehicle from situation where owner consented to installation of tracking device in container before it was acquired by defendant).

2018JEAN Opinion of the Court warrantless search of warehouse and whether various occupants had protectible Fourth Amendment interests under trespass theory, court differentiated those who had no “right to exclude others from any portion of the warehouse” from those who did); United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191, 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that “indicia of ownership - including the right to exclude others - coupled with possession and the permission of the rightful owner, are sufficient grounds upon which to find standing”). ¶20 Thus, while Velez-Colon as the owner could challenge the GPS mon

2016Hawkins v. State, 183 Ariz. 100, 103 (App. 1995). ¶18 The trial court granted Owner’s motion for summary judgment on the Prompt Pay Act claim.

2011But, at least when the defect concerns a matter known to the claimant, the amendment to a notice filed pursuant to § 12-821.01 must be made within 180 days “after the cause of action accrues.” A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A); see Haab, 219 Ariz. at 14, ¶ 24 , 191 P.3d at 1030 . ¶ 16 The superior court did not rule on Turner’s request for leave to amend the notice to name the proper owner of the claim.

2011But, at least when the defect concerns a matter known to the claimant, the amendment to a notice filed pursuant to § 12-821.01 must be made within 180 days “after the cause of action accrues.” A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A); see Haab, 219 Ariz. at 14, ¶ 24 , 191 P.3d at 1030 . ¶ 16 The superior court did not rule on Turner’s request for leave to amend the notice to name the proper owner of the claim.

2010Id. at 437 , 441 ¶¶ 13-14, 30, 212 P.3d at 129, 133 . ¶ 8 We granted Architect’s petition for review because the application of the economic loss doctrine in this context is an issue of first impression and statewide importance.

2010Id. at 437 , 441 ¶¶ 13-14, 30, 212 P.3d at 129, 133 . ¶ 8 We granted Architect’s petition for review because the application of the economic loss doctrine in this context is an issue of first impression and statewide importance.

2009Therefore, we must resolve this issue of first impression in Arizona. ¶ 12 For the reasons that follow, wé hold that the economic loss doctrine does not ap *437 ply to this claim for professional negligence against a design professional. ¶ 13 Owner’s claim against Architect for professional negligence is based in tort, not contract. 4 In relationships between professionals and their clients, “the law imposes special duties to all within the foreseeable range of harm as a matter of public policy, regardless of whether there is a contract, express or implied, and generally regardless of what its

2009Therefore, we must resolve this issue of first impression in Arizona. ¶ 12 For the reasons that follow, wé hold that the economic loss doctrine does not ap *437 ply to this claim for professional negligence against a design professional. ¶ 13 Owner’s claim against Architect for professional negligence is based in tort, not contract. 4 In relationships between professionals and their clients, “the law imposes special duties to all within the foreseeable range of harm as a matter of public policy, regardless of whether there is a contract, express or implied, and generally regardless of what its

2004See Bradler v. Craig, 274 Cal.App.2d 466 , 79 Cal.Rptr. 401, 405 (1969) (“Knowledge or notice of defects or damage that came to the attention of [plaintiffs’] predecessors in interest would be imputed to plaintiffs as of the date thereof____If the defects were such that a reasonable man would have taken corrective action, the statute [of limitations] would commence to run.”); Briggs v. Riversound Ltd.

2004See Bradler v. Craig, 274 Cal.App.2d 466 , 79 Cal.Rptr. 401, 405 (1969) (“Knowledge or notice of defects or damage that came to the attention of [plaintiffs’] predecessors in interest would be imputed to plaintiffs as of the date thereof____If the defects were such that a reasonable man would have taken corrective action, the statute [of limitations] would commence to run.”); Briggs v. Riversound Ltd.