Cited by

or summary judgment, we construe the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party and will affirm only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Drew, 233 Ariz. at 524, ¶ 8, 314 P.3d at 1279 (citing Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 13-14, Orme Sch.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 (2002).

Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 (2002).

Cummins was ordered depublished by our supreme court, P.3d 12 (2002), and we do not consider it.

Fund, ¶ 87 (2002) (as corrected) (discussing elements of fraudulent 7 COULTER v. GRANT THORNTON Opinion of the Court concealment claim).

Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 78 , (“The essential thing is the intent to cause the result.”) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 cmt.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 (2002).

Fund, ¶ 13 (2002) (citation omitted).

Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 (2002).

“(1) the primary tortfeasor [committed] a tort that cause[d] injury to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant [knew] the primary tortfeasor’s conduct constitute[d] a breach of duty; and (3) the defendant [had] substantially assist[ed] or encourage[d] the primary tortfeasor in the achievement of the breach.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 34

Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, , 490 ¶ 59, , 28 (2002).

Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 31 (2002)

¶ 12 (2003) (citing Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 (2002)).

Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 (2002).

App. 1981) (citing Lawrence v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 7 Arizona recognizes a tort claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing “but only where there is a ‘special relationship between the parties arising from elements of public interest, adhesion, and fiduciary responsibility.’” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 60 (2002) (quoting Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins.

See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank v. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 36 (2002) (aiding and abetting “is 16 MORTENSEN v. GUST ROSENFELD, et al. Decision of the Court a theory of secondary liability”); ¶ 54 (App. 2012) (aiding and abetting claim properly dism

See Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 34, (as an element of an aiding and abetting claim, plaintiff must prove defendant substantially assisted or encouraged the primary tortfeasor).

Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence and reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.’” Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund

We view the evidence and reasonable inferences “in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13

& Cement Masons, ¶ 34 (2002).

Manzo timely appealed.1 DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶5 Summary judgment is appropriate “if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” ¶ 14

Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13, Strojnik v. Gen.

We view the evidence and reasonable inferences “in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13

Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13

A party violates the implied covenant when it does “anything to prevent other parties to the contract from receiving the benefits and entitlements of the agreement.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 59

See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters, and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, -91, ¶¶ 59-63, -29 (2003) (noting that “implied terms” can exist in a contract to establish a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but claims for contract damages are governed by whether an agreement between parties established a duty that was breached).