Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818
Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818
The adjuster tells you their driver was mostly at fault, but you were partly responsible too, so they’re cutting your offer in half. Is that legal? Can they do that? And if you were 30% at fault, or 60%, or even 99% at fault, do you still get anything?
Short answer: yes, you can still recover, and the math is more favorable to you than most people realize. Comparative negligence in Arizona is a misunderstood rules in Arizona car accident claims, and insurance adjusters count on that confusion. This article walks through the statute (A.R.S. § 12-2505), the fault-allocation mechanics under § 12-2506, a worked example, and how adjusters use fault percentages to shrink your settlement.
Arizona is a pure comparative negligence state. Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, if you were partially at fault for a crash, your damages get reduced in proportion to your share of the fault. That is the entire rule in one sentence.
“Pure” is the key word. It means there is no cutoff. Some states bar recovery once your fault crosses 50% or 51%. Arizona does not. Even at 99% fault, you can still recover 1% of your damages under A.R.S. § 12-2505(A).
You don’t lose your claim just because you contributed to the accident. That’s the practical takeaway. If you rolled through a stop sign and got T-boned by a driver going 55 in a 35 zone, you’re partly at fault, sure. But you can still recover. The jury (or the settlement negotiation) will assign a percentage to each side, and your recovery is what remains after your share is subtracted.
This is very different from what most people assume when an adjuster says “well, you were partly at fault, so…” The adjuster is not telling you the claim is dead. They’re setting up a discount. Knowing that changes how you respond.
The formula is simple:
Total damages × (100% − your fault percentage) = your recovery
Work an example. Say your total damages come to $100,000. That’s medical bills, lost wages, future treatment, pain and suffering, all of it added together. The jury finds you 30% at fault.
The other 30%, or $30,000, is what you eat because of your own share of fault. That is what pure comparative negligence looks like in practice.
Same formula at any percentage. 10% fault on $100K in damages = $90K recovery. 50% fault = $50K. 80% fault = $20K.
Here is where Arizona stands apart. Assume the same $100,000 in damages, but this time the jury finds you 99% at fault. In many states, you’d get zero. In Arizona, you recover $1,000.
Why does this matter? It matters because insurance adjusters (and even some out-of-state attorneys) will tell claimants that being “mostly at fault” ends the case. Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, that is not true in Arizona. As long as the other party carries some percentage of fault, and there are damages to reduce, there is a recovery available.
That doesn’t mean chasing a 99% fault case is worth the litigation cost. It usually isn’t. But the rule has real teeth in the 20% to 60% fault range where most disputed cases actually live.
In litigation, the jury decides. Under A.R.S. § 12-2506, the jury is instructed to assign a percentage of fault to every party involved in the accident. And here is where it gets interesting: the jury can also assign fault to non-parties, meaning people or entities who aren’t even in the lawsuit.
Defense lawyers call this the “empty chair.” The other driver’s attorney can point at a phantom third driver, a road-maintenance contractor, a bar that overserved someone, or the state DOT, and ask the jury to put some percentage of fault on that empty chair. If the jury puts 40% on a non-party, that 40% comes out of your recovery even though there’s no one at the defense table to collect from.
This is a consequential procedural tools in Arizona injury litigation, and most competitor articles skip it entirely. If the defense flags a non-party fault allocation, your side has to actually prove that non-party wasn’t at fault. Otherwise, the jury can (and often will) park some fault on the empty chair.
Outside of trial, insurance adjusters mimic this in negotiation. They’ll point at road conditions, at a driver who left the scene, at anyone plausible, to shave your recovery.
Arizona uses several liability, not joint-and-several liability. A.R.S. § 12-2506 says each defendant is responsible only for their assigned share of fault. If one defendant is 70% at fault and another is 20%, and you are 10%, the 70%-fault defendant pays 70% of your damages, the 20%-fault defendant pays 20%, and you eat your 10%. Nobody has to cover anyone else’s share.
Why does this matter for you? Because in cases with more than one defendant, the collectibility of each one matters independently. If the driver who’s 70% at fault is uninsured and broke, and the driver who’s 20% at fault has a $250,000 policy, you can only collect that 20% share from the insured driver. The 70% share might be uncollectible unless you have UM/UIM coverage on your own policy.
This is a very different world from joint liability, where any defendant could be tagged for the full amount and left to sort it out with the co-defendants. Arizona doesn’t work that way.
Rear-end collisions. The following driver is typically presumed at fault under Arizona’s comparative negligence framework. That’s the default. But it’s a presumption, not a rule. When a lead driver makes an unjustified sudden stop, some comparative fault can shift to the lead driver. “Brake-checking,” stopping for no visible reason in a travel lane, or reversing at a light are the classic examples. A rear-end case can go from 100/0 to 80/20 or worse for the front driver depending on what the evidence shows.
Left-turn accidents. The driver making a left turn across oncoming traffic is typically at fault when they hit an oncoming vehicle. This is especially true in motorcycle cases, where the left-turning car generally carries the primary fault for pulling into the motorcycle’s path. Comparative fault can still land on the motorcyclist if they were speeding or ran a light, but the baseline lands on the turning driver.
Multi-vehicle pileups. These are the messiest for fault allocation. Every driver’s speed, following distance, and reaction time gets picked apart, and the jury (or adjusters, in settlement) has to divide 100% of the fault among three, four, or five parties. Several liability makes each defendant’s share matter independently for collection.
Your fault percentage reduces all categories of damages by the same amount. That includes both:
Economic damages: the quantifiable financial losses. Medical bills, lost wages, future medical costs, and property damage. Future medical costs specifically require expert medical testimony projecting what treatment you’ll need going forward. This is a category adjusters aggressively discount unless you have the expert support to prove it.
Non-economic damages: the subjective losses. Pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life. Harder to quantify, but real and recoverable.
Whatever your total is across both categories gets multiplied by (100% − your fault %). No category is protected from the reduction. If you’re 30% at fault and your medical bills are $40K and pain and suffering is $60K, you don’t get all $40K of medicals and a discounted pain and suffering number. Everything gets the 30% haircut.
Here is what adjusters actually do. They inflate your fault percentage. Aggressively. That is the single most common tactic used to reduce settlement offers in Arizona because pure comparative negligence gives them a lever that works at every percentage.
Watch for these moves in adjuster conversations:
Every one of those moves has the same purpose: push your fault percentage up so the settlement math shrinks. If the adjuster convinces you (or convinces the file) that you were 40% at fault instead of 10%, they just cut your recovery by a third.
The counter is evidence. Comparative fault is a factual question, and facts win it. In our experience, how fault is proven comes down to a short list of concrete sources:
The earlier this evidence is preserved, the harder it is for the adjuster to argue their inflated fault split. Video gets overwritten in days. Skid marks fade. Witnesses forget. This is why fault percentages are effectively locked in during the first few weeks after a crash, whether you realize it or not.
And remember the statute of limitations: under A.R.S. § 12-542, you have 2 years from the date of the accident to file a personal injury lawsuit in Arizona. That deadline is hard. It doesn’t extend just because the fault percentage is disputed.
Yes. Arizona is a pure comparative negligence state under A.R.S. § 12-2505. There is no 50% cutoff. Even if you were 99% at fault, you can recover 1% of your damages. The recovery just gets smaller as your fault percentage gets larger.
If the case goes to trial, the jury decides under A.R.S. § 12-2506. The jury assigns a percentage to every party and can also allocate fault to non-parties (the “empty chair” defense). If the case settles, the fault percentage is negotiated between the parties and their insurers based on the evidence available.
Yes. The reduction applies to every category of damages, economic and non-economic alike. If you are 30% at fault, you recover 70% of your medical bills, 70% of your lost wages, and 70% of your pain and suffering.
The adjuster can assign whatever percentage they want in their offer, but that number is not binding. It is a negotiating position. If the evidence doesn’t support their percentage, you push back with police reports, witness statements, video, and expert opinions. If the parties can’t agree, the jury decides.
Under Arizona’s several liability rule (A.R.S. § 12-2506), each defendant pays only their share. If the primarily-at-fault driver has no insurance and no assets, that 70% share may be uncollectible from them. This is why uninsured motorist (UM) coverage on your own policy matters. It fills that gap.
Mostly, yes. The following driver is typically presumed at fault, but comparative fault can shift when the lead driver makes an unjustified sudden stop, has non-working brake lights, or stops in a travel lane for no reason. It’s still comparative negligence, just applied against a baseline that usually favors the rear driver.
Fault allocation is where cases are won and lost in Arizona. The math is simple once the percentage is set, but the fight over that percentage is where the real money moves. Before you accept an adjuster’s version of how much fault you carry, get someone to look at the actual evidence.
Free case review with Jared J. Pehrson: (602) 345-1818. We’ll walk through the fault picture, the evidence available, and what the case looks like on the numbers.
By Jared J. Pehrson | Impact Legal Car Accident Attorneys
We're Here To Help 24/7
(602) 345-1818