Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp., 241 Ariz. 22

Background

On April 14, 2012, Luis Viniegra slipped and fell at a funeral on property owned/operated by the Town of Parker Municipal Property Corporation; he suffered serious injuries and began immediate treatment.
Viniegra timely submitted a statutory notice of claim under A.R.S. § 12-821.01; the Town’s risk administrator (Berkley) opened a claim and received medical bills, but the Town never responded.
Plaintiffs filed suit on April 10, 2014 — nearly two years after the injury — asserting negligence and an implied promise by the Town/Berkley that he would not need to sue.
The Town moved to dismiss under A.R.S. § 12-821 (one-year limitations for actions against public entities); the superior court dismissed with prejudice and denied reconsideration. Plaintiffs appealed.
Plaintiffs argued (1) equitable estoppel should toll § 12-821 because the Town’s handling of the claim induced delay, and (2) § 12-821 is unconstitutional as applied, violating equal protection and the Arizona anti-abrogation clause.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: equitable estoppel did not apply; § 12-821 is a constitutional regulation (not an abrogation) and survives rational-basis review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Town is equitably estopped from asserting § 12-821	Viniegra says Town’s solicitation/opening of a claim and handling by its risk adjuster induced him to forbear filing suit	Town says no admission of liability, no settlement negotiations, no promise to toll limitations; notice deemed denied after 60 days	Not estopped — no evidence Town admitted liability or made specific promises that reasonably induced delay; notice was effectively denied and accrual occurred at injury
When did the cause of action accrue for § 12-821 purposes	Viniegra contends accrual should await end/extent of medical treatment and knowledge of damages	Town contends accrual occurred when Viniegra knew he was injured and who caused it (the date of the fall)	Accrual occurred at the injury date; continuing treatment or unknown dollar damages do not toll accrual
Whether § 12-821 violates the Arizona Constitution’s anti-abrogation clause	Plaintiffs claim one-year limit for public entities effectively abrogates the right to sue compared to two-year private-party limit	Town argues the statute regulates the right (a limitation) rather than abolishes it; it provides a reasonable window to sue	§ 12-821 is regulatory, not abrogative; it provides a reasonable time and does not violate art. 18 § 6
Whether § 12-821 violates equal protection by treating public-entity claims differently than private-party claims	Plaintiffs urge heightened scrutiny, arguing a fundamental right is burdened	Town argues rational-basis review applies because the statute regulates (not abolishes) the right; the classification furthers legitimate state interests	Rational-basis applies; statute is rationally related to legitimate interests (avoid stale claims, permit investigation, budgeting), so equal protection claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 (2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
Nolde v. Frankie, 192 Ariz. 276 (1998) (elements for equitable estoppel against statute of limitations)
McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., 228 Ariz. 262 (App. 2011) (settlement negotiations without admission of liability do not ordinarily support estoppel)
Porter v. Spader, 225 Ariz. 424 (App. 2010) (equity may bar a limitations defense when defendant’s fraud/concealment misleads plaintiff)
Flood Control Dist. of Maricopa County v. Gaines, 202 Ariz. 248 (App. 2002) (upholding constitutionality of § 12-821 as regulation rather than abrogation)
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340 (1993) (distinguishing regulation of causes of action from unconstitutional abrogation)
Kenyon v. Hammer, 142 Ariz. 69 (1984) (framework for equal protection analysis and tiers of scrutiny)