Cited by

¶ 7 (App. 2005) (listing the circumstances under which federal laws preempt state law).

And, because “Congress [has] intended the federal government to occupy [this area] exclusively,” “[s]tate law is preempted by federal law.” ¶ 7 (App. 2005).

negligence per se is inappropriate.” ¶ 14 (App. 2005) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Griffith v. Valley of Sun Recovery & Adjustment Bureau, Inc., (“Other jurisdictions have also limited the application of negligence per se to statutes which express rules of conduct in specific and concrete terms as oppose

See Hutto v. Francisco , , ¶ 12, , 937 (App. 2005) ("Negligence per se applies when there has been a violation of a specific requirement of a law."), quoting Griffith v. Valley of the Sun Recovery and Adjustment Bureau, Inc. , , 229, , 1285 (App. 1980).

DISCUSSION ¶9 “Whether arbitration is preempted is a question of law we decide de novo.” United II, 240 Ariz. at 122, ¶ 14 (citing Hutto v. Francisco, 3 UNITED v. AURORA Decision of the Court ¶ 7 (App. 2005)).

No. 83, ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (“On appeal, we review de novo the court’s application of law to th[e] facts.”); ¶ 7 (App. 2005) (“We review federal preemption issues de novo.”); Webb v. State ex rel.

Save Our Valley Ass’n, 216 Ariz. at 218-19, ¶ 6, 165 P.3d at 196-97 (citation omitted) (in reviewing judgment on the pleadings, appellate court reviews superior court’s legal conclusions de novo); ¶ 7, (citation omitted) (federal preemption issues reviewed de novo).

¶ 4 , (insurance contract interpretation is reviewed de novo); ¶ 7 , (federal preemption is reviewed de novo).

(breach of duty and causation are elements of negligence claim); A.R.S.