American Power Products, Inc., a California Corporation; Lfmg/app, LLC, an Arizona Corporation…

Summary

The court held that Arizona's statutory definition of the successful party applies to a contractual attorney-fee provision when the contract incorporates Arizona law, does not define prevailing party, and contains no conflicting term. Because CSK's rejected settlement offer exceeded the total judgment American ultimately obtained, CSK was the successful party from the offer date and was entitled to contractual fees, subject to allocation between its defense and unsuccessful counterclaim. Justice Timmer, dissenting, would have affirmed the trial court's award to American, reasoning that the statute impermissibly altered the contract's single-prevailing-party provision.