apply because the exclusion applies
to the work of the named insured,
regardless of whether the named insured is working as a subcontractor
or not. The subcontractor exclusion
would apply only to the work of
a subcontractor working on behalf
of the named insured. Double AA
Builders v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company, 1 CA-CV 15-0375,
Under the away-going crops
doctrine, perennial plants that a
tenant in a fixed-term lease plants
knowing they will produce beyond
the term of the lease become fix-
tures belonging to the landlord.
Personal property that a tenant
affixes to real estate may become a
“fixture” of the realty if, among
other things, the tenant intends to
make the property a “permanent ac-
cession” to the property. Under the
away-going crops doctrine, a tenant
of a fixed-term lease who plants a
crop when he knows the lease will
expire before the crop can be har-
vested loses any interest in the crop
once the lease terminates. Accord-
ingly, applying the away-going crops
doctrine, a tenant in a fixed-term
lease intends for crops that will pro-
duce beyond the lease’s termination
to become fixtures and remain with
the realty. ABCDW v. Banning, 1
CA-CV 15-0261, 12/30/16.
At-will employees do not have
a claim for wrongful termination
based on a public policy that
employees who are competently
performing their jobs should be
retained. Under the Employment
Protection Act, A.R.S. § 23-1501,
employees may sue for wrongful termination when the discharge violates
a public policy set forth in or underlying a statute. Statutes governing
Arizona’s State Personnel System
provide that covered employees who
are competently performing their
jobs should be retained. As a result,
the State Personnel System requires
cause to terminate covered employees but does not require cause to
terminate uncovered at-will employees. The State Personnel System statute could therefore not form the
basis of a claim for wrongful termination of an at-will employee. Harper v.
State, 1 CA-CV 15-0519, 12/27/16.
The requirement in A.R.S. §
12-821.01 that a person must
file a notice of claim in connection
with claims against a public employee applies to claims against
elected officials. Under A.R.S. §
12-821.01, a person with a claim
against a “public employee” must
file a notice of claim with the person
“authorized to accept service for …
the pubic employee.” If the person
fails to file the notice of claim
within the time the statute requires,
then any lawsuit on the claim is
barred. A “public employee” is an
“employee” of a public entity, and
an “employee” includes officers.
Accordingly, § 12-821.01’s notice
of claim requirement applies to an
elected city council member who is
an officer, and therefore an “em-
ployee,” of the public entity. Villase-
nor v. Evans, 1 CA-CV 15-0433,
The federal Controlled Substance Act does not preempt state
officials from processing and approving zoning for medical marijuana dispensaries. The Arizona Supreme Court has held that the Controlled Substance Act does not expressly preempt all state drug laws or
occupy the entire field, Reed-Kaliher v.
Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 (2015). This
case primarily involved a claim of
conflict preemption when Maricopa
County refused to issue zoning documents for a medical marijuana dispensary. The Court of Appeals rejected the claims of conflict preemption. White Mountain Health Center v.
Maricopa County, 1 CA-CV 14-0372,
Eric M. Fraser and Joseph N. Roth are attorneys at Osborn Maledon PA, where their
practices include civil appeals and appellate consulting with trial lawyers. They may be
reached at firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, and are ably assisted with this column
by Osborn Maledon PA’s appellate group, which maintains azapp.com. AzAPP contributors
include Josh Bendor, Hayleigh S. Crawford, Joshua M. Ernst, William D.
Furnish, Randy McDonald, Brian K. Mosley, Jana Sutton and Andrea Taylor.
Patrick C. Coppen is a sole practitioner in Tucson.
James M. Susa is a shareholder in the Tucson office of
DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy PC.
Use o;er code (BCD) D861100 to always save up to
25% o; base rates. Plus, get other sweet deals like
dollars o;, a free upgrade, or free weekend days.
Book today at budget.com/sba or call 1-800-527-0700.
Terms and Conditions: The savings of up to 25% applies to Budget base rates and is applicable only to the time and mileage charges of the rental. Offer does not apply to car group X All taxes, fees (including but not limited Air Conditioning
Excise Recovery Fee, Concession Recovery Fee, Vehicle License Recovery Fee, Energy Recovery Fee, Tire Management Fee, and Frequent Traveler Fee) and surcharges (including but not limited to Customer Facility Charge and Environmental Fee
Recovery Charge) are extra. Please mention BCD D861100 to take advantage of this offer. Offer is available for U.S. and Canadian residents only for rentals at participating locations in the U.S and Canada. Offer may not be used in conjunction
with any other BCD number, promotion or offer. Weekly rates require a minimum fi ve day rental period. Weekend rate available Thursday noon; car must be returned by Monday 11:59 p.m., or higher rate will apply. A Saturday night keep and
an advance reservation may be required. Discount valid on rentals checked out no later than December 31, 2016. Offer is subject to vehicle availability at the time of rental and may not be available on some rates at some times, including some
online rates at Budget.com. Car rental return restrictions may apply. Offer subject to change without notice. Holiday and other blackout periods may apply. Renter must meet Budget age, driver and credit requirements. Minimum age may vary
by location. An additional daily surcharge may apply for renters under 25 years old.
©2016 Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.