Cited by

erely a member of the larger class who “might reasonably be expected sooner or later to have access to the information and foreseeably to take some action in reliance upon it.” Id.; (foreseeability not 9 factor in determination of duty); Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 190 Ariz. 6, 29, (same).

(holding in a tort ease that “because rescission is primarily a remedy between principals, rescissory damages ought not be available against a third party, like [defendant], who has not been unjustly enriched” because out-of-pocket damages must be adopted where the defendant is a thi

by offering for consideration persuasive advantages or gains that bring about a desired decision____’” -22 , -33 (1997), quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1154 (1969), ¶¶ 19, 22

Bank of Ariz., , -39 (1953); , Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro.

¶ 11 , (recognizing that a statute allowing a claimant's intoxication to be used as an affirmative defense in a civil action neither removed the question of liability from the jury nor required the jury to take particular action, but merely permitted the jury to find the claimant solely responsible for his or her injuries); , ("Under art. 18, § 5 of the Arizona Constitution, contributory negligence and assumption of the risk are always questions of fact for the jury."

accord Davis, 123 Ariz. at 331, 599 P.2d at 784

See Grand, ¶¶ 27-28 , 147 P.3d at 772-73

See Grand, ¶¶ 27-28, 147 P.3d at 772-73

¶ 9 , this court applied Restatement § 552 to a third party’s claim based on allegedly false information supplied by an accounting firm.

(reaching only evidentiary issues related to claims being remanded for retrial because they were likely to recur).

(auditors); ¶ 13, (trustees).

Rather, it contemplates the ‘undoing of the transaction,’ whereby each party gives back to the other what it parted with in the original transaction.” Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse

¶10 CBD argues for a P.2d 317 (App. 1996).

¶ 10 Although Martinez argues that a TCPA violation is an economic tort, 3 which can be assigned, , he ignores the clear pronouncement of Congress that TCPA claims are invasion of privacy tort claims.

¶ 16, -50 (App. 2004) (party generally may not raise new issues or theories on appeal in attempt to secure reversal); Webber v. Grindle Audio Prods., Inc., (“an appeal is not the appropriate place to consider issues or theories not presented below” in summary judgment proceedings); - 28, -39 (App. 1996) (although party neglected to include issue in motion for directed verdict, issue was not waived because it did not relate to sufficiency of evidence, involved pure question of law, and other part

See Sabino Town & Country Estates Ass’n v. Carr, , , (trier of fact determines credibility and weight of expert testimony).

¶ 23 Premium attempts to distinguish this point, , in which we held that "economic damage claims" of an independent auditor "were not so `personal'" that they could not be assigned.

a. ¶10 Based on this rationale, held that the gravamen of a claim of negligence against a provider of professional information is negligent misrepresentation and that a party may not pursue a claim for negligence separate and distinct from a negligent misrepresentation claim.

(negligence); Ariz.Rev.Stat.