Arizona Court Awards $80,869 Sanctions in Hangar Fire Dispute
One person loaned another person money to build an aircraft hangar. The hangar later caught fire and destroyed the aircraft. The lender sued the borrower for the loan money and the value of the aircraft. The parties settled the contract dispute, with the borrower agreeing to pay a portion of the loan. The court later ruled on other claims, finding no bailment or negligence on the borrower's part. The borrower was awarded costs and expert witness fees.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Settlement
- Amount
- $160,000
- County
- Pima County, AZ
- Resolved
- 2013
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Other
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Economic Injury, Property Loss
Settlement Context
This settlement of $160,000 is above the median of $15,000 for other cases resolved by settlement. The typical range is $7,752 to $67,500, based on 126 cases in our database.
Case Overview
In June 2006, the plaintiff loaned the defendants $200,000 for the construction of an aircraft hangar on the defendants' property in La Cholla Air Park in Tucson, Arizona. In exchange, the plaintiff would store a custom turbo prop aircraft in the hangar, and the defendants would build an apartment for the plaintiff's use during stays in Tucson. The plaintiff's aircraft was stored in the hangar beginning in November 2006.
On December 19, 2009, a fire occurred in the hangar, allegedly due to the defendants' actions or inactions, which resulted in the total destruction of the plaintiff's aircraft. The defendants received insurance proceeds but did not rebuild the hangar or repay the loan to the plaintiff. In October 2010, the plaintiff filed suit in the Arizona Superior Court for Pima County, asserting claims for breach of contract, bailment, negligence, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiff sought a constructive trust on the insurance proceeds, an accounting, and damages.
In June 2011, the parties settled the breach of contract and constructive trust claims, with the defendants agreeing to pay $160,000 to the plaintiff. An additional $40,000 was placed in escrow, pending the defendants' claim against the plaintiff for services related to aircraft construction. Following multiple motions for summary judgment, the court ruled in September 2012.
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the bailment claim, finding no evidence of a bailment relationship. Summary judgment was also granted for the defendants on the negligence claim, as the court determined a fire suppression system was not required, and the plaintiff had not demanded one. The court denied the defendants' request for the $40,000 set-off and ordered the escrowed funds paid to the plaintiff. However, the court granted the defendants' motion for Rule 68 sanctions, awarding the defendants double taxable costs and reasonable expert witness fees totaling $80,869.78 against the plaintiff. A formal order was lodged in March 2013.
Understanding This Case
- This case was resolved through a settlement, avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a trial. Settlements typically resolve faster and provide guaranteed compensation.
- This case was resolved in Pima County, Arizona. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 2013, this case reflects the legal and economic conditions of that period, including medical costs, insurance practices, and jury award trends at the time.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome differs from typical similar cases
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Want to check your case value?
Get a free case evaluation to understand what your motor vehicle accident case might be worth based on cases like this in Pima County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
A motor vehicle collision occurred in Mesa County, Colorado, involving a vehicle operated by the defendant and another car carrying the plaintiff as a passenger. The plaintiff alleged the incident caused permanent personal injuries, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and resulted in medical expenses and economic losses. The plaintiff filed a vehicular liability action in the Colorado District Court, Twenty-First Judicial District, County of Mesa, claiming the defendant's negligence. Allegations included failing to operate the vehicle prudently, maintain a proper lookout, obey traffic control devices, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to stop at a red light. The plaintiff sought damages for the alleged harm. In response, the defendant denied the allegations of negligence. The defendant also asserted affirmative defenses, including claims of failure to state a claim, culpable conduct, and failure to mitigate damages. The parties subsequently filed a notice with the court indicating that they had reached a settlement in the action.
A plaintiff with a classic automobile insurance policy filed a claim after three vehicles went missing or were stolen from a storage location in Denver, Colorado. The policy required storage in a specific secure building, but the plaintiff had moved the vehicles during renovations. Two vehicles were later recovered severely damaged, while a third remained unlocated. The insurer made a partial payment for one vehicle but denied full coverage, attributing some damage to wear and tear and denying the unrecovered vehicle's claim. The plaintiff sued the insurer in federal court, alleging breach of contract, unreasonable delay and denial of payment under Colorado statutes, and common-law bad faith. The insurer counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging breach of the policy's misrepresentation and concealment provisions, and requesting recoupment of payments. These counterclaims were permitted to proceed following a magistrate judge's recommendation, which a district judge adopted. The plaintiff later amended the complaint to add the insurance producer as a defendant, alleging negligence if insurer coverage was denied. In July 2023, the plaintiff and the insurer filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice for all claims between them, indicating a settlement had been reached. The specific terms of this settlement were not publicly disclosed. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorney fees.
The employer, Star*Tel Systems, appealed a decision by an administrative law judge in Kentucky. The judge had previously determined that an employee sustained a permanent and total disability following a work-related motor vehicle accident. The appeal challenged the judge's opinion, order, and award.
A personal injury case arose from an auto accident. The plaintiff retained an expert in economics to assess damages. The defendant presented experts in emergency medicine, biomechanics, and accident reconstruction, suggesting disputes over the nature or cause of injuries. An occupational therapy expert also participated in the case. The matter proceeded to a trial, which concluded on December 9, 2016. Details regarding the verdict or any award were not specified in the record.
A lawsuit stemmed from a motor vehicle and pedestrian collision. The plaintiff presented expert testimony related to life care planning and rehabilitation, indicating claims for long-term care and disability. The defendant countered with expert testimony from fields including psychology, neuropsychology, and orthopedic surgery. The parties reached a resolution, and the case was concluded with a stipulated dismissal in April 2019.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.