Cited by

The Arbitration Agreement, however, including a separate signature block, was on a form Tom’s provided, meaning any ambiguity is to be construed against Tom’s. See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2008) (citations omitted).

See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2008).

¶ 19 n.7 (App. 2008) (finding argument presented on appeal in a one-sentence footnote, without substantive analysis, was waived).

“[A]fter consideration of the parties’ intentions,” the provisions must “be construed against the drafter.” MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2008).

MT Builders, ¶ 19 n.7 (App. 2008).

See MT Builders L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2008).

See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.7, ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (noting that arguments not developed on appeal are generally waived).

provision remains uncertain after consideration of the parties’ intentions, as reflected by their language in view of surrounding circumstances, a secondary rule of construction requires the provision to be construed against the drafter.” Pendergast, 234 Ariz. at 541 ¶ 19 (quoting MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2008)).

See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 19 n.7 (App. 2008) (noting that arguments not developed on appeal are generally waived).

See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 19 n.7 (App. 2008) (citing Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.

See MT Builders, LLC v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 13 n.2 (App. 2008) (enumerating the elements of an Arizona common law indemnity claim).

No. 97 , , 167, , 47 (App. 1996) ("Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party's appellate brief are waived.") (citations omitted); see also MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc. , , 304 n.7, ¶ 19, , 765 n.7 (App. 2008) (deeming waived arguments raised "without any analysis").

And, although on appeal Abbott vacillates between arguing a duplicitous indictment and a duplicitous charge, see Butler, 230 Ariz. at 470, ¶ 13 (A duplicitous charge is “one that alleges multiple crimes due to the presentation of evidence at trial.”), he has not sufficiently developed either argument, and we may consider his argument waived, MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.7, ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (arguments not developed on appeal are deemed waived).

See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.7, ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (arguments not developed on appeal are deemed waived).

MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 10

See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.7, ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (arguments not developed on appeal are waived).

See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.7, ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (arguments not developed on appeal are waived).

See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.7, ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (arguments not developed on appeal are waived).

Citing a footnote in MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.2, ¶ 13 (App. 2008), Solomon then concludes that Hatch cannot prove essential elements of common law indemnity — that the indemnity plaintiff (Hatch) and indemnity defendant (Solomon) owed a legally enforceable obligation to the third party (the Hunts).

See Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, ¶ 29, (stating issues not clearly presented in appellate briefs are deemed waived); n.7, ¶ 19, n.7 (App. 2008) (finding an argument raised below but presented on appeal in a one-sentence footnote without any analysis is deemed waived).

See id.; n.7, ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (reference to appellate argument in one-sentence footnote without any analysis is insufficient to present an argument on appeal).

See Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, ¶ 29, (stating issues not clearly presented in appellate briefs are deemed waived); MT Builders, n.7, ¶ 19, n.7 (App. 2008) (finding argument raised below but presented on appeal in a one-sentence footnote without any analysis is deemed waived).

If the contract remains unclear after considering the parties’ intent, the court construes the provision “against the drafter.” MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., , 302 ¶ 10

MT Builders, n.7, ¶ 19, n.7 (App. 2008) (arguments not developed on appeal are deemed waived).

See MT Builders, n.7, ¶ 19, n.7 (App. 2008) (stating one-sentence reference to appellate argument in footnote without any analysis was insufficient to present argument and deeming it waived).