ARIZONA SUPREME COURT

Fidelity National v. Friedman, CV-10-0096-CQ, filed 8/9/10.

Only a common law action on a judgment, filed in court which rendered it, acts to automatically renew it pursuant to ARS § 12 -1551 (B) and § 12-1611. Garnishment proceedings or other related litigation does not renew a judgment.

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

Canyon v. SCF Arizona, CV 09-0408, September 16, 2010.

The merits of this case dealt with a dispute about the payment of compensation for medical care against a work comp carrier. The methodology used by SCF to calculate reimbursement is not a rule within the meaning of the APA, and thus not subject to the rule-making requirements. The trial court's ruling was affirmed that the reasonable value of the providers' services was best measured by the overall rate of payment accepted from other payors for the same services. Rule 68 sanctions in favor of the defense were also approved.

HAMILL v. MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, 2 CA-CV 2010-0044, 09/03/2010.

The court found no UIM coverage where the adverse driver's insurance company promised to "pay the amount of any judgment or settlement." An excess verdict was obtained against the adverse driver and damages in excess of policy limits paid. The adverse carrier paid in excess of policy limits. Plaintiff then arbitrated under the UIM provisions of his own policy and received an award which was less than the stipulated offset amount.

The court held that the adverse driver was not underinsured because his carrier agreed to pay without regard to policy limits and ultimately did pay without regard to policy limits, and therefore the policy was never exhausted. The court declined to award attorney fees.