Cited by

a (1979); see also Mein, 219 Ariz. at 100, ¶ 19 , 193 P.3d at 794 (concluding evidence that drivers revved engines at a stoplight and bantered supports finding of agreement to race); ¶ 53 , (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876 cmt.

Standard Chartered PLC, 190 Ariz. at 27 , 945 P.2d at 328; , 99 n. 10, ¶ 38, , 1049 n. 10 (App. 2007) (concluding appellants’ failure to file motion for JMOL challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a recovery theory precluded appellants from raising that issue in a post-verdict motion for JMOL).

See Brookover, n.2, 156 P.3d at 1162 n.2 (appellate court will not consider arguments not presented to trial court at time trial court considered summary judgment motion); n.11, n.11 (App. 2007) (arguments not raised in opening brief waived).

Constructive fraud, in contrast, is “ ‘a breach of legal or equitable duty which, without regard to moral guilt or intent of the person charged, the law declares fraudulent because the breach tends to deceive others, violates public or private confidences, or injures public interests.’ ”

at 23 (“Arizona [law] recognizes aiding and abetting as embodied in Restatement [ (Second) of Torts] § 876(b), that a person who aids and abets a tortfeasor is himself liable for the resulting harm to a third person.”); Security Title Agency, , (recognizing aiding and abetting claim for breach of fiduciary duty); -03, ¶¶ 49-52 , -53 (App.2007) (discussing aiding and abetting fraud).

¶ 50 , (“[T]he knowledge requirement may be satisfied by showing general awareness of the primary tortfeasor’s fraudulent scheme.”).

¶46 , (“Under Arizona law, a director cannot be liable without some kind of personal participation in the tort or at least acquiescence by knowledge of the tort combined with a failure to act.”).