Hayenga v. Gilbert
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- Andrews v. BlakeArizona Supreme Court · 2003
- Amfac Distribution Corp. v. MillerArizona Supreme Court · 1983
- Amfac Distribution Corp. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
- Glaze v. LarsenArizona Supreme Court · 2004
- Commercial Union Insurance v. Lewis & RocaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bellemare v. Lemon LawCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2021
- Gregory v. WhitneyDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019