which makes sense given the scope of the
largest verdicts. The median was also the
highest of recent years, at $49,200. The
cases in this category had one or more
person who was physically injured. They
included motor vehicle accident injury,
product liability, medical malpractice, exces-
sive force, and wrongful death cases. These
kinds of cases made up
about 73 percent of all the
cases tried to verdict in
2012. Of all of the person-
al injury cases tried in
2012, plaintiffs won 56
percent of them and defen-
dants won 44 percent.
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Significant Defense Verdicts
In the interest of equal time and coverage, we
highlight some noteworthy defense verdicts
below. These are from a variety of different
types of cases in which the claimed damages
at trial were high. Here are a few of 2012’s
significant Arizona defense verdicts:
A
Barbara Sloan v. Farmers Insurance
Company of Arizona, Farmers Insurance
Exchange, and Farmers Group, Inc., 23
Maricopa County Superior Court,
CV2009-033244
Barbara Sloan’s home and two vehicles were
burned in a fire in 2009, and she submitted
an insurance claim for property damage to
Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona.
Sloan was charged with arson and insurance
fraud, and she demanded Farmers’ initial
expert report that concluded the cause
of the fire was undetermined. Farmers
declined to give the report and stopped a
payment that was in progress, but later paid
the full claim after the charges against Sloan
were dismissed.
Sloan claimed the fire was caused by an
electrical malfunction and that it originated
in a motor vehicle. She claimed that
Farmers acted in bad faith when it attempt-
ed to underpay her claim and failed to pro-
duce exculpatory evidence that would have
been helpful to her criminal defense. Sloan
alleged that she sustained stress, humilia-
tion, anxiety and depression and lost her
job. She asked the jury to award $2.3 mil-
lion in compensatory damages, $6.9 million
for emotional distress, and $31 million in
punitive damages. Farmers defended that
it had a reasonable belief that Sloan was
involved in intentional burning of her prop-
erty, that her claim was handled properly,
and that the fire did not originate in a vehi-
cle but instead had multiple origins.
effects. The Everetts alleged the filter had
been inadequately tested, that the filter was
defective due to unreasonably high stress on
it, that the failures were due to fatigue, and
that the filter had an excessively high failure
rate. The Everetts asked the jury for $5.5
million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. Bard demonstrated that the
filter was not defective and had been reasonably tested, that the filter’s fracture rate was
no more than the accepted industry average,
and that the fractures came from atypical
loading conditions. This was the first bellwether trial for a Bard filter of this type.
D
Universal Engraving, Inc. v.
Metal Magic, Inc. and Charles Brown, 26
United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, 08-01944
Frederick Duarte worked for Universal
Engraving, Inc. as head of research and
development for 14 years. They had a non-
compete agreement with confidentiality
and nonsolicitation provisions. In 2007,
Duarte went to work for Metal Magic,
a competitor of Universal Engraving.
Universal Engraving claimed that Metal
Magic and its owner Charles Brown
improperly obtained and used trade secrets
and confidential information regarding its
products and technologies, and unfairly
competed. Universal Engraving sought
injunctive relief and compensatory damages
of $3 million plus an unspecified in amount
in punitive damages. Metal Magic defended
that the hiring of Duarte was proper, and
that Metal Magic never obtained or used
any trade secrets or confidential information
belonging to Universal Engraving.
