Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds estate executor’s disclosures are insufficient for other beneficiaries’ damages claims.

In March 2017, a man fell and was injured at a skilled nursing facility.  He died a few days later.  The man had eight surviving children.  In March 2018, two of his children sued the facility (on behalf of themselves and the man’s estate), alleging wrongful death.  In June of the same year, the children’s attorneys sent letters to the man’s other children notifying them of the filing of the lawsuit.  The letter informed them that only one lawsuit may be filed for wrongful death, but that each sibling could assert their own damages claim.  Most of the siblings did not respond.

In May 2020, fact discovery closed.  A firm jury trial date was set for November 2020.  In June 2020, the facility moved for summary judgment on the damages claims of the other children, arguing they had failed to provide any evidence of a loss and had otherwise not participated in discovery.  In July 2020, the other children filed a reply, stating they had recently retained counsel but noting they had not previously participated in the lawsuit.  Counsel entered an appearance in August 2020 and filed a motion for summary judgment.  That motion argued that it was the facility who had failed to participate in discovery, that the summary judgment motion did not meet professional standards, and that defendants had done nothing to investigate the children’s claims.  At the same time, the children provided affidavits about their relationship with their father and their claimed losses.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants.  The court concluded that the children had not made any timely disclosures, provided no justification for this failure, and rejected any claimed ignorance of the suit.  The court ruled the children’s evidence inadmissible and, as a result, they would be unable to recover any damages at trial.  As such, summary judgment was warranted.  A subset of the children appealed.

On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Court began by rejecting an argument that the trial court had abused its discretion in not allowing the children’s late disclosure.  The trial court had not found that the late disclosure would cause no prejudice—indeed, it found the opposite.  Additionally, the trial court had properly assessed the relevant factors, such as an excuse justifying the late disclosure, whether the tardiness was willful, and whether the children had known about the lawsuit.  The trial court’s conclusions were all supported by the record, and so there was no abuse of discretion.

Similarly, the Court also affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.  The children argued that their two siblings’ timely disclosures amounted to timely damages disclosures as to them, but the Court rejected this argument.  The sibling acting as the executor of their father’s estate could only establish liability—the individual damages of the individual children was up to each child to establish.

Justice Thumma authored the opinion for the Court, joined by Judges Cruz and Brown.

Posted by: Joshua J. Messer