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

Back to cases

Other Injury

Other Accident

Economic Injury

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, Texas. 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.

Verdictly^TM Score

/100

Questionable

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.

Check Your Case Value

Similar cases you may find useful

Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.

Motor Vehicle Negligence

On May 26, 2004, a plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was rear-ended near the intersection of Bedford Avenue and De Kalb Avenue in Brooklyn. The plaintiff's vehicle was preparing to make a U-turn when the collision occurred. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging the driver of the striking vehicle was negligent and the vehicle owner was vicariously liable. The defendants conceded liability, and the case proceeded to trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained a herniated disc at C5-6, seeking medical treatment 21 days after the incident. Treatment included chiropractic care, acupuncture, massage therapy, and hot and cold packs over several months. The plaintiff reported missing two days of work and alleged permanent neck pain, decreased range of motion, and episodes of immobility, asserting an inability to engage in activities such as dancing, playing basketball, or wearing high heels. A family medicine physician testified on the plaintiff's behalf. The defendants argued that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff resolved within 90 days of the accident, with the decreased range of motion improving within three months. A radiologist testified for the defense, stating that the plaintiff's MRIs were normal and indicated no injury. Prior to the verdict, the parties agreed to cap any damages award at $25,000, which represented the policy limits. The plaintiff had also settled a claim with the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger for $3,500. Following the trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000, including $10,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future pain and suffering. The final recovery was then reduced to the agreed-upon $25,000 cap.

Kings County • 2010

View full case