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 fee language. Because CSK's rejected settlement offer may have exceeded the judgment American ultimately obtained, CSK could qualify as the successful party from the offer date, while American remained entitled to fees incurred before that date. Justice Timmer, dissenting, would have affirmed the trial court because the contractual term "prevailing party" required identifying the party that won the lawsuit rather than applying the statute's settlement-based fee-shifting rule.