Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818
Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818
You rolled the stop sign. You glanced at your phone. You changed lanes a beat too early. Then somebody hit you, and now the adjuster is telling you the crash was “mostly your fault” and offering a settlement that doesn’t come close to covering your medical bills. You’re wondering if you even have a case.
Short answer: yes. In Arizona, being partially at fault for a Phoenix car accident does not bar you from recovering. It reduces what you recover by your fault percentage. That’s it. This article walks through the rule (A.R.S. § 12-2505), the math at common fault splits, who actually decides your percentage, and what to do when the adjuster is leaning on you to take a quick check.
Arizona is a pure comparative negligence state. Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, your damages are reduced in proportion to your percentage of fault, but you are not blocked from recovery even at high fault percentages. This is different from “modified” comparative negligence states, where being more than 50% at fault zeroes out the case. Don’t get pulled into state-count debates with the adjuster. What matters is the Arizona rule: percentage reduction, no fault-percentage cutoff.
Practically, that means a Phoenix driver who is 30% at fault for a crash with $100,000 in damages still has a $70,000 case under the statutory formula. A driver who is 60% at fault for the same crash still has a $40,000 case under the same formula. Even at the extreme, a driver who is 99% at fault can recover 1% of damages. That last one rarely matters in real life, but the principle behind it is what protects every case in the middle: the law doesn’t care whether you contributed to the crash, only how much.
Comparative negligence is the legal doctrine that splits responsibility between everyone whose conduct contributed to a crash. In Arizona, the rule lives at A.R.S. § 12-2505. It says total damages get reduced by the claimant’s percentage of fault, with no upper limit on the plaintiff’s fault that bars recovery. If you want the deeper statutory walkthrough, here’s how Arizona’s comparative negligence rule works in detail.
A few things this rule is NOT:
The statutory formula is simple. Total damages, multiplied by (100% minus your fault percentage), equals your recovery.
Total damages × (100% − your fault %) = recovery
“Total damages” includes your medical bills (past and future), lost wages, lost earning capacity, property damage, and non-economic damages like pain and suffering. Future medical costs in particular usually require expert medical testimony projecting what treatment you’ll need, what it will cost, and over what timeframe. That’s a piece adjusters love to leave out.
Here’s the formula at common fault splits on a hypothetical $100,000 case. This is a worked illustration of the statutory math, not a typical settlement value:
The 30% example plays out the same way under A.R.S. § 12-2505: $100,000 in damages, 30% plaintiff fault, recovery calculated at $70,000.
The 99% example sounds like a math party trick. It isn’t. It exists in the statute because the legislature wanted to draw a clear line: Arizona does not have a fault-percentage cliff. There is no point at which your fault percentage flips your case to zero. That matters most for the cases in the middle of the spectrum, where the adjuster wants you to believe 51% is a magic number. It isn’t, in Arizona.
Here’s the part most people miss. The adjuster’s opinion on your fault percentage is not law. It is an opening position in a negotiation.
Under A.R.S. § 12-2506, fault is assigned by the jury (or, in a settled case, negotiated between the parties with the jury verdict serving as the realistic ceiling). The jury assigns a fault percentage to every party, including non-parties under the “empty chair” rule, meaning someone who isn’t even in the courtroom can be assigned a share of fault if the evidence supports it. The adjuster does not get to assign your fault percentage by phone.
What the adjuster CAN do is pressure you into accepting their version because you don’t want to fight. That’s the leverage. Knowing the rule takes the leverage away.
Adjusters frequently inflate the claimant’s fault percentage to reduce the settlement. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s the math working against you. If they can move you from 20% at fault to 50% at fault on paper, they cut their payout in half. So they look for any admission, any ambiguity, any prior statement they can use to nudge the number up.
Pushing back is about evidence. The evidence used to prove fault in a Phoenix car accident includes the police report, scene photos, witness statements, vehicle damage patterns, traffic camera footage, cell phone records, event data recorder (“black box”) downloads, and reconstruction expert opinions when the case justifies it. The more of that evidence we lock down early, the less room the adjuster has to pin a high percentage on you.
We also push back by reframing the narrative. A rolling stop doesn’t make you 80% at fault for getting T-boned by a driver going 55 in a 35 mph zone. A late lane change doesn’t make you 70% at fault for getting hit by a driver who was on a phone. Your conduct contributed, sure. So did theirs. Often more.
The cases we see most often across the Phoenix metro where the partial-fault question comes up:
A few general guidelines, with the caveat that what you owe your OWN insurer can be different and depends on your policy’s cooperation clause.
What you generally should NOT do with the OTHER driver’s insurer:
What you can do:
Categorical “never talk to insurance” advice oversimplifies the picture. Your duties to your own carrier under the policy are real. Get specific guidance for your specific policy.
Arizona uses several liability under A.R.S. § 12-2506, not joint liability. The practical difference matters when more than one party caused the crash. Under several liability, each defendant pays only their assigned fault share. There is no joint payment, meaning you cannot collect a co-defendant’s share from the deepest pocket.
Example: you’re in a three-car crash. The jury finds Driver A 60% at fault, Driver B 30% at fault, and you 10% at fault. On $100,000 in damages, your total recovery comes out to $90,000 under the formula, but you collect $60,000 from Driver A’s policy and $30,000 from Driver B’s policy. If Driver B is uninsured or underinsured, you don’t get to make Driver A pay Driver B’s share. You may have to look to your own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Accidents with multiple at-fault parties get complicated fast, especially when one of the at-fault drivers is uninsured.
Under A.R.S. § 12-542, you have 2 years from the date of the accident to file a personal injury lawsuit in Arizona. Miss the two-year deadline and your case is gone, regardless of how strong it was. Different rules apply for claims against government entities (180-day notice under A.R.S. § 12-821.01) and for minors. Don’t wait. Even strong cases need investigation time, expert workups, and negotiation runway before suit gets filed.
No. The adjuster’s percentage is a negotiating position. Under A.R.S. § 12-2506, a jury assigns fault, not the adjuster. Their number is the opening bid in a conversation, not a court ruling.
Often, yes. On-scene admissions are evidence but they are not dispositive. People in shock say things that turn out to be wrong. A statement like “I’m sorry” or “I didn’t see them” gets weighed against the physical evidence, witness statements, and reconstruction. It hurts the case but rarely ends it.
Speeding can shift some fault to you, but it doesn’t erase the other driver’s conduct. A driver who runs a red light and hits a speeding car is still mostly at fault for running the red light. The percentages get argued. Recovery is still on the table.
Two years from the date of the accident under A.R.S. § 12-542. Claims against government entities have a 180-day notice deadline. Don’t wait to find out which applies.
That depends on your carrier and your policy. It’s a separate question from your right to recover from the other driver’s insurance. Both can happen in the same case.
Often, yes. The lower your fault percentage gets argued down to, the higher your recovery under A.R.S. § 12-2505. On a hypothetical $200,000 case, the difference between a 20% and a 50% plaintiff fault finding is a $60,000 swing in the statutory recovery calculation. That math is why partial-fault cases are still worth a real attorney evaluation on serious-injury claims.
If the adjuster is telling you the crash was your fault and you’re not sure whether to push back or take the offer, talk to us before you sign anything. We’ll walk through the evidence, the likely fault split, and how Arizona law applies to your facts. No pressure and no obligation.
Free case review with Jared J. Pehrson: (602) 345-1818. We answer 24/7.
By Jared J. Pehrson | Impact Legal Car Accident Attorneys
We're Here To Help 24/7
(602) 345-1818