## Facts

- Kevin E. Hamblin, a California resident, was injured on June 19, 1994, in a Tennessee automobile accident while a passenger in a car driven by Kevin G. DeLoach, an Arizona resident.
- The other vehicle was driven by William Moore, a Tennessee resident.
- On June 19, 1996, Hamblin filed a tort action in Arizona state court against the DeLoaches and the Moores; Budget Rent-A-Car was initially named but later dismissed.
- Tennessee’s personal-injury limitations period was one year; Arizona’s was two years.
- The action was timely under Arizona law but would have been time-barred under Tennessee law.
- The Moores did not appear in the Arizona action, and the Arizona court apparently lacked personal jurisdiction over them.

## Issues

1. In an Arizona-filed tort action arising from an accident in Tennessee, should Arizona apply its two-year statute of limitations or Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations to claims against Arizona resident defendants?

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations applied to the action against the Arizona resident defendants.
- The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision that had applied Tennessee’s one-year period.
- The court reinstated the trial court’s denial of the DeLoaches’ motion for summary judgment, allowing the suit to proceed as timely.

## Legal Principles

- Under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 142 (1988 revision), the forum generally applies its own statute of limitations.
- A forum may apply another state’s limitations period only when (1) that state has a more significant relationship to the parties and occurrence and (2) exceptional circumstances make applying the forum’s period unreasonable.
- The place of injury alone does not constitute an exceptional circumstance requiring displacement of the forum’s limitations period.
- The forum state has a substantial interest in applying its remedial and limitations regime when its residents are defendants in its courts, particularly to further deterrence and compensation policies.
- A foreign state’s interest in a shorter limitations period carries less weight when the foreign defendants are not subject to the forum’s jurisdiction and the forum litigation effectively concerns only forum residents.

## Conclusion

Arizona’s Supreme Court applied Restatement § 142 to hold that Arizona’s two-year limitations period governed claims against Arizona resident defendants for an out-of-state accident, because no exceptional circumstances justified importing Tennessee’s shorter one-year bar.


DeLoach v. Alfred, 960 P.2d 628 (Ariz. 1998)