Cited by

In applying the Sparks test, the court should look not just at the “form of the pleadings,” but also “the nature of the action and the surrounding circumstances.” Ramsey Air Meds, 198 Ariz. at 14 ¶ 21 ().

¶35 To determine whether a claim arises out of contract, we consider “the nature of the action and the surrounding circumstances.” (citation omitted).

-36 (1986) (explaining that matter arises from contract when there is “causal link between [a] claim and the underlying contract”); § 12-341.01(B) (“The award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to this section should be made to mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just

“A claim is liquidated if the evidence furnishes data which, if believed, makes it possible to compute the amount with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion.” vacated in part

Co., ¶ 11 (App. 1998); (explaining that “fees are not appropriate based on the mere existence of a contract somewhere in the transaction,” and there must be a “causal link between [the] claim and the underlying contract”).

may be characterized as arising out of contract.” Schwab, 196 Ariz. at 37, ¶ 11; (stating courts look “to the nature of the action and the surrounding circumstances” and explaining that “fees are not appropriate based on the mere existence of a contract somewhere in the transaction,” but rather, there must be a “causal link between [the] claim and the underlying contract”); Sparks v. R

See, (“[A]ttorney’s fees are not 4 AZ HOME, et al. v. MARICOPOLY Decision of the Court appropriate based on the mere existence of a contract somewhere in the transaction”).

Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc., –16, ¶ 27 (App. 2000).

(internal quotations omitted).

“[T]his court will look to the nature of the action and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the claim is one ‘arising out of a contract.’” (citation omitted).

¶ 27 (App. 2012) (action considered to have arisen out of contract when plaintiff asserts a contract); Associated Indem.

§ 12-341.01(A), but if a contract forms only a “factual predicate to the action” and is not its “essential basis,” the action does not arise out of a contract, ¶ 17 (App. 2003).

"[T]his court will look to the nature of the action and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the claim is one 'arising out of a contract.'" ("[A]ttorney's fees are not appropriate based on the mere existence of a contract somewhere in the transaction.").

(stating that an action to invalidate an alleged contract is “one ‘arising out of a contract’ within the meaning of § 12- 341.01(A)”).

§ 12-341.01(A) is justified where the contract has “some causal connection with the claim.” Chaurasia, 212 Ariz. at 26, ¶ 25 ().

§ 12-341.01 “‘as long as the cause of action in tort could not exist but for the breach of the contract.’” (quoting Sparks v. Republic National Life Ins.

for the proposition that a claim may allege fraud yet still arise in contract.