Arizona Premises Liability Funding

Two years from the date of injury for a personal-injury claim (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542).

Arizona applies pure comparative negligence — a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault but never barred outright, regardless of the percentage assigned (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2505). Arizona generally follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts approach to premises liability, imposing a duty on a possessor of land to exercise reasonable care for the safety of invitees, including protection from foreseeable third-party criminal conduct where the owner had notice of a pattern or specific circumstances suggesting the risk. What most distinguishes Arizona for a catastrophic negligent-security or structural-failure claim is not the duty standard itself but the damages framework: the Arizona Constitution's anti-abrogation clause specifically prohibits the legislature from capping the amount of damages recoverable for personal injury or wrongful death (Ariz. Const. art. II, § 31), a durable, constitutional protection rather than merely the absence of a cap that could later be enacted.

No damages cap of any kind applies. The Arizona Constitution's anti-abrogation clause specifically prohibits any statutory limitation on the amount of damages recoverable for personal injury or wrongful death (Ariz. Const. art. II, § 31).

Generally unavailable on unliquidated personal-injury damages before judgment; post-judgment interest is governed by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201.

Proper in the county of the defendant's residence or where the claim arose (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 damages protection matter most in a catastrophic negligent-security case?

Arizona's anti-abrogation clause bars the legislature from capping personal-injury damages by statute at all, which is a stronger and more durable protection than simply the absence of a cap that has not yet been enacted.

This means a severe injury from an assault enabled by inadequate security, or from a structural failure such as a collapsed railing or a malfunctioning elevator, is not exposed to the kind of legislative damages ceiling that applies in states like Ohio or Tennessee — the full documented value of pain-and-suffering and economic loss carries through to case valuation regardless of severity.

How does pure comparative fault shape underwriting for an Arizona negligent security claim?

Because fault only reduces, never eliminates, recovery, an Arizona claim retains value even where the plaintiff bears meaningful responsibility for entering an area later shown to be inadequately secured.

The practical underwriting focus is sizing the likely fault percentage against the documented injury and foreseeability record, not assessing whether a fault threshold will eliminate the claim entirely.

Does a multi-defendant security structure affect an Arizona claim?

Negligent-security and structural-failure claims frequently name a property owner, a management company, and sometimes a separate security or maintenance contractor, each of whom may bear a different share of the responsibility.

Establishing which entity controlled security staffing, lighting, or maintenance decisions often requires discovery into the contractual relationships among the co-defendants themselves, adding time beyond a single-defendant claim.