Edington v. Aaa Insurance

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

JULIET CLAIRE EDINGTON, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

AAA INSURANCE, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 23-0618
FILED 07-09-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CV202200907
The Honorable Michael P. McGill, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Juliet Claire Edington, Dewey
Plaintiff/Appellant

The Cavanagh Law Firm, P.A., Phoenix
By William M. Demlong, Parker C. Bunch
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

EDINGTON v. AAA INSURANCE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Plaintiff Juliet Claire Edington (“Juliet”) appeals the superior
court’s dismissal of her suit against defendant CSAA1 for negligence and
bad faith in handling her injury claim arising from an auto accident. The
court dismissed her suit because CSAA, which insured the driver of the car
but not Juliet, owed her no duties. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In August 2016, Juliet, then a minor, and her sister Saria
Edington (“Saria”) were in an auto accident. Saria was driving. CSAA
insured Saria but not Juliet.

¶3 In December 2022, Juliet sued CSAA, alleging she was
seriously injured in the accident, suffering a skull fracture, traumatic brain
injury, and “permanent and severe injuries.” Juliet claimed CSAA
exhibited bad faith because it “offered [her] a paltry $15,000 to cover
permanent impairments.”

¶4 In March 2023, CSAA moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted under Arizona Rule of Civil
Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). CSAA argued it owed no duty to Juliet
because she was neither the driver of the car, nor insured under any CSAA
policy.

¶5 The superior court granted the motion. The court reasoned
CSAA owed no negligence-based duty. The court dismissed Juliet’s bad
faith claim because there was no contractual privity between CSAA and
Juliet. While the court found CSAA was entitled to an award of reasonable
fees and costs pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-341 as

1 AAA Insurance was misnamed as a defendant and should have been sued

as CSAA General Insurance Company (“CSAA”). We refer to the insurer-
defendant in this case as CSAA, or the insurer.

2

EDINGTON v. AAA INSURANCE
Decision of the Court

the prevailing party in an action arising out of contract, CSAA filed no fee
application.

¶6 After entry of final judgment, Juliet appealed. We have
jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1), Ariz. Const. Art. 6, Section 9.

DISCUSSION

¶7 By rule, appellate briefs must include an argument section
with “contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with
supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal
authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on
which the appellant relies,” and “the applicable standard of appellate
review with citation to supporting legal authority.” Arizona Rule of Civil
Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 13(a)(7). Juliet’s brief lacks contentions,
supporting reasons, and legal citations.

¶8 Juliet implies A.R.S. § 28-4009 requires CSAA to provide
insurance coverage to her. It does not. A.R.S. § 28-4009 concerns the
requirements of “an owner’s motor vehicle liability policy,” not requiring
an insurer to cover a passenger. Juliet also cites Arizona Rule of Evidence
901 to suggest CSAA’s understanding of the accident was incorrect –
specifically, that she was in Saria’s car when the accident occurred. But
Rule 901 is not relevant to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which
addressed the adequacy of Juliet’s complaint. Moreover, CSAA admits
Juliet was in the car when the accident occurred. The court’s order granting
the motion to dismiss rested on entirely different, and purely legal, bases
that Juliet does not challenge in her appellate brief.

¶9 Juliet does not otherwise make arguments or cite authority for
any additional arguments, as ARCAP 13 requires. Accordingly, any such
arguments are not properly before this court. See Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz.
519, 522 ¶ 8 (App. 2022).

3

EDINGTON v. AAA INSURANCE
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm. Juliet requested sanctions against CSAA’s
counsel. CSAA requested attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal pursuant to
A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and ARCAP 21, but CSAA’s theory of the case is that
there is no contractual relationship between it and Juliet. In our discretion,
we deny both requests.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AGFV

4