Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT
PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
v.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
W I N T H R O P, Judge:
2
AMBERWOOD et al. v. SWANNS
Decision of the Court
3
AMBERWOOD et al. v. SWANNS
Decision of the Court
ANALYSIS
4
AMBERWOOD et al. v. SWANNS
Decision of the Court
are clear and unambiguous, they are conclusive. Goodman v. Newzona Inv.
Co., 101 Ariz. 470, 472, 421 P.2d 318, 320 (1966).
5
AMBERWOOD et al. v. SWANNS
Decision of the Court
16 Swanns also contends it can only be held liable for its pro rata
share of Amberwoods damages under the Uniform Contribution Among
Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), which largely abolished joint and several
liability. UCATA, however, does not impair Amberwoods contractual
indemnity rights. See A.R.S. 12-2501(F)(1) (2016) (UCATA does not
[i]mpair any right of indemnity under existing law); cf. State Farm Ins. Cos.
v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 217 Ariz. 222, 228, 26, 172 P.3d 410, 416
(2007) ([I]ndemnification is not at all inconsistent with apportionment of
fault under 122506.).
6
AMBERWOOD et al. v. SWANNS
Decision of the Court
IV. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Awarding
Amberwood Defense Costs and Attorneys Fees.
22 In its briefing to this court, Swanns has not shown the award
lacked any reasonable basis; indeed, its arguments relative to this issue are
7
AMBERWOOD et al. v. SWANNS
Decision of the Court
cursory at best. We therefore affirm the defense costs and attorneys fees
awards.
25 Swanns did renew its objection to the repair costs list, which
the trial court overruled. But Swanns has not shown that the trial court
abused its discretion in doing so. Amberwoods expert testified that the list
was a compilation of items taken from cost of repair reports prepared
several years earlier that he believed Swanns was at least partially
responsible for. Swanns did not rebut this testimony or offer anything to
show that the substance of the list had not been previously known and
timely disclosed. On this record, we therefore find no abuse of discretion.
8
AMBERWOOD et al. v. SWANNS
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION