Brooks v. State Farm

── Brooks v. State Farm ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE RHONDA BROOKS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0767 FILED 05-22-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2023-015814 The Honorable Scott A. Blaney, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Law Office Of Richard A. Gullette, Phoenix By Richard A. Gullette Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Hill, Hall, Stark & Ferraro, PLC, Scottsdale By Joel DeCiancio, Christopher Robbins Counsel for Defendant/Appellee  BROOKS v. STATE FARM Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 Rhonda Brooks appeals the denial of her motion for summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") in an action seeking a declaration that Arizona law governs an auto insurance policy purchased in South Dakota but involving an accident that occurred in Arizona. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 At least as early as 2010, South Dakota residents Ron and Irma Hettich began spending about five months of the year (November to March) at their mobile home in Arizona. In 2017, the Hettiches bought, titled, and registered a Chrysler Pacifica in South Dakota. They also purchased an auto liability insurance policy from a South Dakota State Farm agency and renewed the policy biannually from 2018 to 2021, always using their South Dakota address to determine the rate. The insurance agent knew about the Hettiches' Arizona property, but the policy listed the Hettiches' South Dakota address, did not indicate multiple homes, and charged a rate based on the South Dakota residential address. ¶3 The Hettiches' policy included Underinsured Motorist ("UIM") coverage with $100,000/$300,000 limits and a "Choice of Law" provision, designating "the law of the state of: South Dakota will control . . . in the event of any disagreement as to the interpretation and application of any provision in this policy." The policy further included a "Limits" provision, reducing the availability of UIM coverage by the amount of recovery from liable tortfeasors. ¶4 In March 2022, the Hettiches sustained fatal injuries in a vehicle collision in Arizona. Brooks, as the surviving child and statutory beneficiaries' representative, collected $550,000 from the tortfeasor's liability carriers—an amount exceeding the State Farm policy's limits. State 2  BROOKS v. STATE FARM Decision of the Court Farm denied a subsequent UIM claim, citing South Dakota law and the policy's choice-of-law provision. ¶5 Brooks brought the current action for declaratory relief, seeking to establish that Arizona substantive law controls the interpretation of the policy. The relevant Arizona statute allows "stacking"—UIM coverage applies to "total damages exceed[ing] the total applicable liability limits." A.R.S. § 20-259.01(G). The corresponding South Dakota statute limits UIM coverage to the "underinsured motorist coverage limits on the vehicle of the party recovering less t