Insurers need not offer or
provide UIM coverage to owners or operators of commercial
vehicles. The Uninsured Motorist
Act generally requires insurers to
make available uninsured motorist
(“UIM”) coverage in amounts not
less than the bodily injury or death
liability limits of a motor vehicle
liability policy, and requires the
insurer to include UIM coverage
if requested by the insured. A.R.S.
§ 20-259.01(A), (B). Subsection
C, however, provides a permissive
option that permits the insurer to
make UIM coverage available “to
owners and operators of motor
vehicles that are used as public or
livery conveyances or rented to
others or that are used in the business primarily to transport property or equipment.” A.R.S. § 20-
259.01(C). That subsection does
not require insurers to offer or
provide UIM coverage to owners
or operators of commercial vehi-
cles. Gambrell v. IDS Prop. Casual-
ty Ins. Co., 2 CA-CV 2014-0147,
9/9/15.
Knowledge of correct med-
ical treatment and knowledge
of risks of inadequate treat-
ment may support finding of
“evil mind” when a hospital
provides inadequate treatment.
Punitive damages are available un-
der the Adult Protective Services
Act (A.R.S. § 46-455(H)( 4)) only
when the defendant acted with
an “evil mind.” A defendant acts
with an “evil mind” if it either
intends to injure the plaintiff or
consciously pursues a course of
conduct knowing that it creates a
substantial risk of significant harm
to others. A jury may find that a
hospital had an “evil mind” if its
nurses and employees had knowl-
edge of the correct medical treat-
ment, understood the importance
of that treatment, and understood
the risks of inadequate treatment.
Newman v. Select Specialty Hospital-Arizona, Inc., 1 CA-CV 13-0665,
9/1/15.
COURT OF APPEALS SPECIAL
ACTION MATTERS
Attorney–client communica-
tions made during a mediation
are protected by the mediation
process privilege even if the cli-
ent later brings a malpractice
claim against the attorney. With
few exceptions, Arizona’s media-
tion process privilege protects from
disclosure all “[c]ommunications
made, materials created for or used
and acts occurring during a media-
tion.” A.R.S. § 12-2238(B). Un-
like the attorney-client privilege,
a party may not “impliedly waive”
the mediation process privilege,
and waiver occurs only if one of the
statutory exceptions applies. The
statute’s exceptions do not provide
for waiver of attorney-client com-
munications made in a mediation
when a client brings a malpractice
claim against the attorney. Thus,
although a malpractice claim may
waive the attorney–client privilege
generally, the communications made
in a mediation are still subject to
the mediation process privilege.
Grubaugh v. Lawrence, 1 CA-SA
15-0012, 9/22/15.
COURT OF APPEALS INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSION MATTERS
Workers’ compensation benefits for a performer with a seasonal contract generally should
be calculated based on the performer’s earnings for the preceding 30 days. In general, an injured
worker is entitled to benefits based
on the worker’s earnings for the
preceding 30 days. If a worker has
seasonal earnings due to weather,
climate, or other seasonal causes,
then the benefit calculation may be
based on earnings over an extended
