Requests for Admission Deemed Admitted in Arizona if Not Responded to Within 30 Days
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gFaFwFTY, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPvzTw_3 and at https://lnkd.in/gy6u9uGk and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4828
Rose Karam, an insured, appealed from the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her residential property insurer, Mercury Casualty Co. In Rose A. Karam v. Mercury Casualty Company, No. 2 CA-CV 2023-0112, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division (May 31, 2024) her suit against Mercury was defeated by admission that she had no case because she responded late to requests.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Karam was an insured under a Mercury homeowner’s policy. After suffering a fire at her home, Karam filed a property loss and damage claim under the policy, citing damage to a piano and a wall mirror. Following receipt of payments by Mercury Karam complained to Mercury that she was underpaid for personal property losses.
Two years later, Karam sued Mercury for insurance fraud, consumer fraud, and breach of contract. Thereafter, on August 30, 2022, Mercury served Karam with a set of discovery requests including interrogatories and requests for admission. Karam’s response to the requests for admission were due within thirty days of service she provided her responses months later on December 1, 2022.
Mercury moved for summary judgment. By its motion, Mercury asserted, in part, that because Karam’s responses to the requests for admission were untimely, the requests were deemed admitted. Due to those admissions-including that Karam had been fully and fairly paid for her losses, that Mercury had not breached the insurance policy, and that Karam had suffered no damages-Mercury claimed it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Karam’s breach of contract claim.
The court further determined that, even considering her actual, albeit untimely, responses to the requests for admission, Karam “failed to produce admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of fact for trial.”
DISCUSSION
The Court of Appeals will only affirm a grant of summary judgment if the evidence produced in support of the defense or claim has so little probative value that no reasonable person could find for its proponent.
Admissions
Arizona Rule 36(a)(1) provides that “[a] party may serve on any other party a written request to admit . . . the truth of any matters . . . relating to . . . facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and . . . the genuineness of any described documents.” The purpose of requests for admission is to expedite the trial and to relieve parties of unnecessary costs in proving facts.
Once a party is served with requests for admission, failure to respond within 30 days the rule provides “[a] matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.”
Karam conceded on appeal that she did not respond to Mercury’s requests for admission within the required thirty-day period. Therefore the superior court did not abuse its discretion in deeming the statements in the requests for admission admitted.
Karam effectively admitted that she had been fully and fairly compensated for the claims she submitted, that Mercury did not breach the insurance policy, and that she did not otherwise have damages. Those admissions – even each standing alone – defeat a claim for breach of the insurance policy.
Given the allegations in Karam’s complaint and her admissions made by operation of law, there remained no material issue in dispute and Karam can no longer carry her burden of proof in this action.
Mercury was entitled to summary judgment and the court did not err in granting Mercury’s motion.
ZALMA OPINION
A lawyer practicing in Arizona that does not comply with the rules concerning Requests for Admission will always lose because his opponent will always send a Request including the ultimate facts about the case. Mercury’s counsel took advantage of the Arizona rule and obtained admissions that resulted in the resolution of the case in its favor. Karam is not without a remedy, she has a cause of action against her lawyer.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe & Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
