Legal Opinion

Hayenga v. Gilbert

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided February 12, 2015No. 1 CA-CV 13-0489PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SWANN, Judge:

¶ 1 In this case, we hold that a claim for legal malpractice arising out of the alleged failure to timely commence an action, or to join a party in an existing action, is subject to the accrual rale established by Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller (“Amfac I ”), 138 Ariz. 155, 673 P.2d 795 (App. 1983), and Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller (“Amfac II”), *540138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (1983). Such conduct occurs “during the course of litigation” under Amfac, and a malpractice claim based on that conduct does not accrue until the underlying litigation is finally resolved…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Andrews v. BlakeArizona Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Amfac Distribution Corp. v. MillerArizona Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Amfac Distribution Corp. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
  4. Glaze v. LarsenArizona Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Commercial Union Insurance v. Lewis & RocaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bellemare v. Lemon LawCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2021
  2. Gregory v. WhitneyDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API