Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc., 300 P.3d 907

Shaws contracted CTVT Motors for hail-damage repairs to their vehicle; CTVT represented it could complete repairs competently and timely but needed parts first.
Parts arrived in early November 2010; CTVT repeatedly told Shaws repairs would be finished in a few days.
In December 2010 the Shaws retrieved their car; on driving it to California, it malfunctioned; a Phoenix shop found repair work was not done properly.
May 2011 Shaws sued in superior court asserting CFA misrepresentations in selling services, seeking damages including loss of vehicle value, use, and re-repair costs.
CTVT moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing CFA claims were barred by the economic loss rule since the Shaws alleged no non-economic damages.
Superior court granted the motion, dismissing the CFA claim, leading to the Shaws’ appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the economic loss rule bars CFA claims.	Shaws rely on CFA to remedy deceptive practices, not contract terms.	CTVT argues economic loss rule bars CFA since only contract remedies available.	Economic loss rule does not apply to CFA claims.

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 143 Ariz. 368 (Ariz. 1984) (economic loss rule applies to purely economic loss in strict-liability contexts)
Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc., 223 Ariz. 320 (Ariz. 2010) (limits on contract remedies absent injury to persons or property in construction defects)
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 110 Ariz. 573 (Ariz. 1974) (private CFA remedy acknowledged to counteract unfair practices)
Madsen v. W. Am. Mortg. Co., 143 Ariz. 614 (Ariz. App. 1985) (CFA remedial, broad purposes; private remedy recognized)
Cook v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 258 P.3d 149 (Ariz. App. 2011) (applied or discussed economic loss rule in context of fraud/contract remedies)