Mass Tort & MDL Plaintiff Funding in Arizona

Arizona applies a two-year limitations period to a mass tort claim (A.R.S. §12-542). Arizona has no general statute of repose for ordinary consumer products, so an older exposure or product does not by itself cut off a claim.

Arizona applies pure comparative fault (A.R.S. §12-2505) to a mass tort claim sounding in strict liability as well as negligence — a plaintiff's own fault reduces recovery proportionally but does not bar it outright, regardless of the percentage of fault involved, which as in other pure comparative-fault states in this profile tends to be built into a mass tort settlement matrix's graduated point ranges.

Arizona imposes no cap of any kind on damages recoverable for causing death or injury to any person — the Arizona Constitution expressly prohibits the legislature from enacting any law limiting such damages (Ariz. Const. Art. 2, §31), with a narrow felony exception. This is especially significant in a mass tort involving catastrophic injuries, where the absence of any statutory ceiling can make a well-documented Arizona claim's individual value substantially higher than an equivalent claim in a capped-damages state.

Pre-judgment interest is generally unavailable on unliquidated personal-injury damages in Arizona prior to verdict; a claim resolved through a global settlement matrix instead receives an allocated award under the settlement's own terms.

An Arizona mass tort claim filed in or removable to federal court can be transferred to a federal MDL under 28 U.S.C. §1407 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Arizona does not maintain a widely known dedicated state-level mass tort coordination program comparable to New Jersey's or Pennsylvania's; an Arizona-filed mass tort claim not consolidated federally generally proceeds under ordinary Arizona civil procedure and venue rules (A.R.S. §12-401).

Arizona regulates consumer litigation funding under the Litigation financing disclosure and consumer protection statute (SB 1215, 2025), A.R.S. §§ 12-3451 to 12-3456 (Title 12, Ch. 28). No statutory rate or fee cap.

Why does Arizona's constitutional no-cap rule matter more in a mass tort context than an ordinary injury case?

Because a mass tort settlement matrix often allocates awards within capped point ranges tied to injury severity categories, an Arizona plaintiff with a catastrophic injury has a stronger argument that their individual claim's uncapped state-law value exceeds what a standard matrix category would otherwise assign, particularly if the plaintiff has the option to opt out of a global settlement and litigate individually.

This makes the opt-out decision itself a more consequential question for a seriously injured Arizona mass tort plaintiff than for the equivalent plaintiff in a capped-damages state, since Arizona's constitutional protection is a genuine source of individual leverage that a generic settlement matrix may not fully capture.

How does Arizona's pure comparative-fault rule affect underwriting a mass tort claim relative to a bar-threshold state?

Because fault only reduces damages proportionally in Arizona and never eliminates them, an Arizona mass tort claim with some comparative-fault or causation-strength exposure still typically remains fully within a settlement matrix's fundable range rather than facing the binary, all-or-nothing risk a modified comparative-fault or contributory-negligence state's claim might carry.

Combined with the state's uncapped damages rule, this gives an Arizona mass tort claim a comparatively favorable overall risk profile in this profile's fifteen-state set, particularly for a catastrophic-injury plaintiff weighing whether to remain in a global settlement or pursue individual litigation.