This is the notice of claim case we discussed a year ago when the court of appeals issued its opinion. The court of appeals held a notice stating the claimant would settle for “$1 million or applicable policy limits, whichever are greater” does not meet the sum certain statutory requirements. The Arizona Supreme Court agrees with the court of appeals’ decision although not all of its reasoning. From what we see, the Court did not like the court of appeals’ analogizing to Rule 68 and its apportionment language. We agree that analogy caused some head-scratching. The Court focuses on the uncertainty created when the offer referenced “applicable policy limits,” without telling us what policy that meant. The Court notes plaintiff’s attorneys gave conflicting interpretations. Overall, well-reasoned, and we appreciate the Court’s brevity. But what more can be said about the sum certain requirement?

link to opinion