Camelback v. Cbre
1 CA-CV 16-0144
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 4, 2017Background
- Camelback Plaza West defaulted on a loan secured by commercial property; a settlement required refinancing or cash payment by late August 2012 to avoid foreclosure.
- CFS Global agreed to provide refinancing based on a ≤75% loan-to-value and retained CBRE to appraise the property; the engagement expressly identified CFS Global as the intended user and prohibited third‑party reliance.
- CBRE appraiser Todd Lamb produced an as‑is valuation of $4.15M (later amended to $4.2M); CFS Global forwarded the appraisal to Camelback’s manager, who expected a substantially higher value.
- A separate CBRE broker (Ackel) submitted a $2M offer on behalf of Fenway; that offer expired before the appraisal was delivered to CFS Global.
- Camelback failed to refinance and the property was sold at trustee’s sale; Camelback sued CBRE for negligent misrepresentation and intentional interference with business expectancy.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for CBRE; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CBRE owed Camelback a duty under negligent misrepresentation (Restatement §552) | CBRE knew appraisal would be forwarded to Camelback and therefore intended to influence Camelback’s refinancing decision | Engagement and appraisal named only CFS Global as intended user and expressly disclaimed third‑party reliance; no intent to reach Camelback | No duty — appraisal was intended for CFS Global only; foreseeability of transmission insufficient to create duty |
| Whether Camelback justifiably relied on the appraisal | Camelback relied on the appraisal in failing to obtain refinancing | Camelback was contractually bound by the prior settlement and CBRE owed no duty; reliance element was not met | Court did not reach reliance because duty issue was dispositive; superior court also found no justifiable reliance as alternative basis |
| Whether CBRE intentionally interfered with Camelback’s business expectancy with Fenway | CBRE employees coordinated such that CBRE enabled Fenway to buy the property cheaply (appraisal undervalued to benefit Fenway) | Fenway’s $2M offer expired before appraisal was completed; no evidence Fenway knew appraisal value when making offer | No interference — temporal sequence and lack of knowledge negate intentional, improper interference |
| Whether disputed facts precluded summary judgment | Camelback argued factual disputes about intent and coordination required denial of summary judgment | CBRE argued legal issues (duty, timing, motive) are matters of law and record lacks reasonable contrary inferences | Summary judgment appropriate; duty is legal question and material facts do not create reasonable inference of liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301 (1990) (summary‑judgment probative‑value standard)
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (2007) (duty is a legal question)
- Sw. Non‑Profit Hous. Corp. v. Nowak, 234 Ariz. 387 (App. 2014) (appraiser liability under Restatement §552; foreseeability insufficient for duty)
- Belen Loan Inv’rs, LLC v. Bradley, 231 Ariz. 448 (App. 2012) (limits of appraiser duty to intended users)
- Kuehn v. Stanley, 208 Ariz. 124 (App. 2004) (no duty where recipient was contractually bound before appraisal)
- Neonatology Assoc., Ltd. v. Phx. Perinatal Assocs., Inc., 216 Ariz. 185 (App. 2007) (elements and impropriety/motive analysis for tortious interference)
- Safeway Ins. Co. v. Guerrero, 210 Ariz. 5 (2005) (interference must be intentional and improper)