Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands, 231 Ariz. 448

Background

Belen Loan Investors, LLC and Los Lunas Investors, LLC loaned approximately $2.6–$2.95 million in 2006 for land development in New Mexico, secured by notes, property interests, and guaranties.
Bradley, an Arizona appraiser, prepared valuations used by Myers and the borrowers to obtain the loans, allegedly containing false, inflated values.
After default, BLI sued Myers, borrowers, and related entities; Bradley moved to dismiss BLI’s negligent misrepresentation and aiding-and-abetting claims, arguing no duty owed.
Trial court dismissed on the theory that an appraiser owes no duty to third parties in this context, relying on Sage v. Blagg Appraisal Co. et al. and related cases.
The trial court denied BLI’s motion to amend; BLI appealed, challenging the duty ruling and the denial of amendment.
The court reverses in part, holds that the complaint plausibly alleges a duty under Restatement § 552 and Sage’s framework, and remands for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bradley owed a duty to BLI as a third party	BLI contends Bradley owed a duty under Restatement § 552 to a limited group that included BLI because Bradley intended to supply or knew Myers would supply appraisals to BLI.	Bradley argues no such duty exists because appraisals were for Myers’s use and in a non-residential loan context; Sage is distinguishable.	Duty to BLI exists or may be found; court reverses on this point and remands for further fact development.
Whether the complaint states a negligent misrepresentation claim	BLI alleges Bradley provided falsely inflated appraisals, knew lenders like BLI would rely, and used improper methodology, satisfying notice pleading.	Bradley argues the complaint fails to allege duty or justified reliance with sufficient specificity.	Complaint suffices to state a negligent misrepresentation claim under notice pleading.
Whether the aiding-and-abetting tort claim was properly dismissed	BLI contends Bradley aided or abetted others’ torts by supplying false appraisals.	Bradley contends the aiding-and-abetting theory fails independently and was properly dismissed.	Aiding-and-abetting claim was properly dismissed; not disturbed.
Whether the denial of the second amendment to the complaint was proper	BLI argued amendment would remedy deficiencies and should be allowed.	Bradley argued amendment would be futile or unnecessary given dismissal grounds.	Argument moot because first amended complaint survives; remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Key Cases Cited

Sage v. Blagg Appraisal Co., 221 Ariz. 33, 209 P.3d 169 ((App. 2009)) (appraiser liability to third parties in certain contexts)
Kuehn v. Stanley, 208 Ariz. 124, 91 P.3d 346 ((App. 2004)) (no duty to homebuyers in lending appraisal context)
Hoffman v. Greenberg, 159 Ariz. 377, 767 P.2d 725 ((App. 1988)) (appraiser owed no duty to third-party purchaser in vacant land sale)
Lamparella, Estate of Lamparella, 210 Ariz. 246, 109 P.3d 959 ((App. 2005)) (party intent and surrounding circumstances determine liability)
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., Cullen II, 218 Ariz. 417, 189 P.3d 344 ((App. 2008)) (notice pleading; contract intrinsic documents and Rule 12(b) standards)
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 190 Ariz. 6, 945 P.2d 317 ((App. 1996)) (Restatement § 552 framework applied in professional-liability contexts)
St. Joseph’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 154 Ariz. 307, 742 P.2d 808 ((King’s Hosp. 1987)) (insurer's statements regarding patient coverage duties)
Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 150 P.3d 228 ((App. 2007)) (foreseeability not a duty-factor, duty based on relationships)