Product Liability Lawsuit Funding in Arizona

Arizona applies a two-year limitations period to product liability and other personal-injury claims (A.R.S. §12-542). Arizona has no general statute of repose for ordinary consumer products.

Arizona applies pure comparative fault (A.R.S. §12-2505), and Arizona's comparative-fault statute applies to actions based on 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.

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 the amount of such damages (Ariz. Const. Art. 2, §31), with a narrow exception where the injured person was engaged in, attempting, or fleeing after a felony offense. This is especially significant in a catastrophic-injury product case — a defective vehicle component or medical device, for example — where damages can be severe with no statutory ceiling.

Pre-judgment interest is generally unavailable on unliquidated personal-injury damages in Arizona.

Product liability suits are typically filed in the Arizona county of the defendant's residence or where the claim arose (A.R.S. §12-401). Because manufacturer defendants are frequently incorporated and headquartered outside Arizona, an out-of-state manufacturer can support removal to federal court on diversity grounds (28 U.S.C. §1332) as an alternative to the state venue rule.

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 so much for a serious product injury?

Because the Arizona Constitution bars the legislature from capping damages for death or injury, a catastrophic product-injury claim in Arizona has no statutory ceiling limiting its potential value, which is a meaningful factor in valuing the most serious cases in this profile.

This is particularly relevant for a defective vehicle component, medical device, or industrial product that causes permanent or life-altering injury, where the absence of a cap can make a well-supported Arizona claim substantially more valuable than an equivalent claim in a state with a damages ceiling.

Does Arizona's pure comparative-fault rule make underwriting more forgiving than a bar-threshold state?

Yes, in relative terms. Because fault only reduces damages proportionally in Arizona and never eliminates them, a case with some misuse evidence still typically remains fundable rather than facing an all-or-nothing outcome.

This gives Arizona product claims a comparatively favorable risk profile relative to modified comparative-fault states with a 50% or 51% bar, even before accounting for the state's uncapped damages rule.

How does Arizona's two-year clock affect the pace of building a defect case?

A two-year window is workable but requires prompt expert engagement for a design- or manufacturing-defect theory, particularly given how consequential the defect analysis becomes once damages have no statutory ceiling limiting the case's ultimate value.

Underwriting an Arizona claim typically looks closely at how much of the two-year window remains and how developed the defect theory already is before assessing the case's overall funding profile.