Michael Cullen, a Single Man; and Jana Coronado, a Single Woman, Plaintiffs/appellants v. Auto-Owners Insurance…

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), as previously interpreted by the Court, continues to govern the sufficiency of claims for relief: Arizona retains notice pleading and has not adopted the plausibility standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. Because Article 6, Section 5(5) of the Arizona Constitution vests exclusive rulemaking and interpretive authority in the Supreme Court, Rule 8 may change only through this Court's own interpretation or a Rule 28 petition, not through lower-court decisions. The Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment sustaining dismissal of the plaintiffs' UIM breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims, but vacated the portion of that opinion discussing Twombly as unnecessary and confusing. Justice Hurwitz concurred in the rejection of Twombly but dissented from affirming the dismissal, contending the complaint had never been evaluated under the correct standard and should be remanded to the court of appeals.