Arizona
Truck Accident Laws in Arizona (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited September 7, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

A truck accident claim in Arizona runs on two tracks at once. State tort law sets the deadline to sue, decides how fault affects what you can recover, and governs auto insurance. Federal law, enforced by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), regulates how commercial trucks and their drivers must operate, and those rules often supply the evidence of fault.
This page explains both. It is general legal information, not legal advice, and deadlines and outcomes turn on the specific facts, so confirm how the law applies to your situation with a licensed Arizona attorney.
Statute of Limitations in Arizona
Under A.R.S. Section 12-542, an action for injuries done to the person of another must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward. The clock generally starts on the date of the crash. Filing late usually means the court will dismiss the case for good, regardless of how clear the trucking company's fault.
Limited exceptions exist. Under A.R.S. Section 12-502, the deadline is generally tolled until a minor turns 18, and a discovery rule may apply where an injury could not reasonably have been found right away. Different deadlines and notice rules apply if a government entity is involved. Confirm your exact deadline with a licensed attorney.
Wrongful Death in Arizona
When a truck crash causes death, the claim proceeds under Arizona's wrongful death statutes, A.R.S. Sections 12-611 and following. The same two-year period in A.R.S. Section 12-542 governs a claim for injuries when death ensues, accruing at the death of the injured party. The action is brought by a statutory beneficiary or the estate's personal representative, and recoverable losses can include the survivors' economic and noneconomic harm.
Negligence Rule: Pure Comparative Fault
Arizona follows pure comparative negligence. Under A.R.S. Section 12-2505, if a claimant is partly at fault, the claim is not barred; instead, the full damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant's relative degree of fault. In practice, if a jury finds you 30% responsible, your award is reduced by 30%. Even a plaintiff found mostly at fault can still recover the remaining share.

There is one limit: the statute denies comparative-fault recovery to a claimant who intentionally, willfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or death. Short of that, the rule reduces rather than eliminates a recovery, so the fault percentages still matter and the evidence of how the crash happened remains central.
No-Fault and PIP
Arizona is not a no-fault state. It uses a traditional fault-based (tort) system, so the party who caused the crash, and that party's insurer or employer, is responsible for the resulting harm. There is no personal-injury-protection (PIP) threshold you must clear before you can sue. You pursue the at-fault driver and the motor carrier directly.
Damage Caps and State Insurance
Arizona is unusual in that its Constitution forbids damage caps. Article 2, Section 31 provides that no law shall limit the amount of damages recoverable for causing death or injury, and Article 18, Section 6 protects the right of action to recover damages for injuries. As a result, neither economic nor noneconomic personal-injury damages are capped, and juries may award full compensation supported by proof.
For coverage context, Arizona's minimum auto-liability requirement is 25/50/15: $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for bodily injury, and $15,000 for property damage. Commercial trucks are subject to far higher federal minimums, discussed below.
Federal FMCSA Rules That Shape Liability
Interstate trucking is governed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Violations are frequently the clearest proof of negligence in a truck case. Key areas include:

- Hours of service (49 CFR Part 395): a property-carrying driver may drive at most 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty, cannot drive beyond the 14th hour on duty, and is capped at 60 hours in 7 days or 70 in 8. These limits target fatigue.
- Electronic logging devices (49 CFR Part 395, Subpart B): most drivers must use an ELD that connects to the engine and automatically records driving time, motion, and location, replacing easily falsified paper logs.
- Driver qualification and CDL (49 CFR Part 391): carriers must verify a driver's commercial license, medical certification, and record before putting that driver on the road.
- Drug and alcohol testing (49 CFR Part 382): pre-employment, random, and post-accident testing is mandatory.
- Inspection, repair, and maintenance (49 CFR Part 396): trucks must be systematically inspected and kept in safe operating condition, with records to prove it.
Who Can Be Liable
A truck crash usually involves more potential defendants than a car crash, and many are corporations. Depending on the facts, those who may share liability include:
- the truck driver, for negligent driving or hours-of-service violations;
- the motor carrier (trucking company), often vicariously for its driver and directly for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or maintenance;
- a broker or shipper that arranged or controlled the load;
- a cargo loader whose improper loading caused a shift or rollover; and
- a parts or truck manufacturer, if a defect contributed.
Identifying every responsible party matters because each may carry separate insurance, and because Arizona's pure comparative system apportions fault among everyone involved.
Federal Minimum Insurance: $750,000
Under 49 CFR 387.9, a for-hire carrier operating in interstate commerce with a vehicle rated over 10,001 pounds must maintain at least $750,000 in liability coverage for general (nonhazardous) freight. Carriers hauling certain hazardous materials must carry $1,000,000 or $5,000,000. These minimums dwarf the $25,000 bodily-injury minimum on a typical Arizona car policy, which is a major reason trucking cases are litigated differently.
Preserving Evidence
Much of the proof in a truck case lives on the truck and in company files, and it can disappear fast. ELD and logbook data, the engine control module or onboard "black box," dashcam footage, and maintenance and inspection records can be overwritten or routinely discarded. A timely written preservation (spoliation) letter to the carrier helps keep this evidence intact, and in Arizona it can also pin down the fault percentages that drive the recovery.

How to Evaluate a Potential Claim
Move quickly. Get the police crash report, photograph the scene and vehicles, keep all medical records and bills, and write down the date of the crash and of any later-discovered injury. Note any witness names and the truck and trailer company markings.
Most personal-injury attorneys offer a free initial consultation and work on a contingency fee, meaning they are paid only out of a recovery. No attorney can promise an outcome or a dollar amount, and only a licensed Arizona attorney can assess whether your specific facts support a claim within the deadlines.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue for a truck accident in Arizona?
Generally two years from the date of the crash under A.R.S. Section 12-542, which also governs a claim when death ensues, accruing at the death of the injured person. Claims involving a government entity have shorter notice deadlines, so confirm yours with a licensed Arizona attorney before relying on any date.
Who can be sued after a truck accident in Arizona?
Often several parties: the driver, the motor carrier (both vicariously and for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or maintenance), a broker or shipper, a cargo loader, and a parts or truck manufacturer if a defect contributed. Truck cases routinely have multiple, often corporate, defendants.
How is a truck accident different from a car accident in Arizona?
Commercial trucks are regulated by the federal FMCSA rules in 49 CFR, so violations of hours-of-service, logging, maintenance, and testing requirements can prove negligence. Interstate carriers must also carry at least $750,000 in liability coverage, far more than a typical car policy, and there are usually more defendants and more electronic evidence to preserve.
How does Arizona's comparative negligence rule affect my case?
Arizona uses pure comparative negligence under A.R.S. Section 12-2505. Your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, but you are not barred from recovering even if you are found mostly at fault, unless your conduct was intentional, willful, or wanton. The percentages still matter, so the crash evidence is important.
Is Arizona a no-fault state for truck accidents?
No. Arizona uses a fault-based system, so you pursue the at-fault driver and trucking company directly. There is no personal-injury-protection (PIP) threshold to clear before filing.
How much is a truck accident case worth in Arizona?
There is no fixed value. Compensation depends on the facts, the injuries, the available insurance, and the evidence. Arizona's Constitution bars damage caps, so neither economic nor noneconomic damages are capped. No attorney can guarantee an outcome or a dollar amount; a licensed attorney can assess your situation.
What is the minimum insurance a trucking company must carry?
Under 49 CFR 387.9, interstate for-hire carriers of general freight must carry at least $750,000 in liability coverage, with $1,000,000 or $5,000,000 required for certain hazardous materials. That is well above Arizona's 25/50/15 minimum for cars.
Injured in Arizona? Get a free case review from a personal-injury attorney
If someone else's negligence caused your injury, you may be owed compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Get a free, no-obligation review from a Arizona personal-injury attorney. Most work on contingency, so there is no upfront cost.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 12 (Courts and Civil Proceedings), Chapter 16 (UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG TORTFEASORS ACT), Article 1 (General Provisions)
§ 12-2505Comparative negligence; definitionIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
A. The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury. If the jury applies either defense, the claimant's action is not barred, but the full damages shall be reduced in proportion to the relative degree of the claimant's fault which is a proximate cause of the injury or death, if any. There is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death. B. In this section, "claimant's fault" includes the fault imputed or attributed to a claimant by operation of law, if any.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 64 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. (1986) held section 12-2505 a constitutional enactment that may apply to cases arising before its effective date but filed after. Williams v. Thude (1997) held an instruction directing a verdict against a wantonly negligent plaintiff went beyond what subsection (A) requires.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. (Arizona Supreme Court 1986, 149 Ariz. 130)✓A plaintiff hurt in February 1984 sued that September, after Arizona's comparative negligence statute took effect; on a certified question the court held section 12-2505 constitutional and applicable to a claim that arose before but was filed after its effective date.
- Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Arizona Supreme Court 1995, 183 Ariz. 399)✓A retiree injured when a hand grinder's disc shattered won a strict liability verdict after the judge refused comparative fault instructions; the court held section 12-2505 reaches product misuse rather than limiting damages, so refusing the instruction was error, and remanded.
- Williams v. Thude (Arizona Supreme Court 1997, 188 Ariz. 257)✓A jury was told that if the injured driver acted willfully or wantonly she had no right to any damages and must lose; the court held section 12-2505(A) only withholds comparative fault from such a plaintiff and does not bar all recovery, so the instruction was error.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Arizona Dashcam Laws: Rules for Dashboard Cameras in Vehicles, Medical Malpractice Laws in Arizona (2026): Deadlines & Caps
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 12 (Courts and Civil Proceedings), Chapter 5 (LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS), Article 3 (Personal Actions)
§ 12-542Injury to person; injury when death ensues; injury to property; conversion of property; forcible entry and forcible detainer; two year limitationIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
Except as provided in section 12-551 there shall be commenced and prosecuted within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions: 1. For injuries done to the person of another including causes of action for medical malpractice as defined in section 12-561. 2. For injuries done to the person of another when death ensues from such injuries, which action shall be considered as accruing at the death of the party injured. 3. For trespass for injury done to the estate or the property of another. 4. For taking or carrying away the goods and chattels of another. 5. For detaining the personal property of another and for converting such property to one's own use. 6. For forcible entry or forcible detainer, which action shall be considered as accruing at the commencement of the forcible entry or detainer.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 497 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kenyon v. Hammer (Arizona Supreme Court 1984, 142 Ariz. 69)“…es at the date of death and is barred two years thereafter. A.R.S. § 12-542(2). Plaintiff argues that Count I of th…”
- Walk v. Ring (Arizona Supreme Court 2002, 202 Ariz. 310)“…rtant, if not irrelevant. 2 The text of A.R.S. § 12-542 reads in pertinent part as follows:…”
- Florez v. Sargeant (Arizona Supreme Court 1996, 185 Ariz. 521)“…informed Gomez of the two year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-542 and that it was the position of the Dio…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules, Arizona Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, Arizona Medical Records Retention Laws (2026 Guide)
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 12 (Courts and Civil Proceedings), Chapter 6 (SPECIAL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BY INDIVIDUAL PERSONS), Article 2 (Death by Wrongful Act)
§ 12-611LiabilityIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
When death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action to recover damages in respect thereof, then, and in every such case, the person who or the corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death was caused under such circumstances as amount in law to murder in the first or second degree or manslaughter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 100 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. (Arizona Supreme Court 1985, 144 Ariz. 467)“…t a viable fetus was not a “person” as that word is used in A.R.S. § 12-611, the statute which authorizes the insti…”
- Vo v. Superior Court (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1992, 172 Ariz. 195)“…ges for its wrongful death under the statutory authority of A.R.S. § 12-611. 3 Summerfield,…”
- Fernandez v. Romo (Arizona Supreme Court 1982, 132 Ariz. 447)“…amages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured * * A.R.S. § 12-611. The defendant Romo, as representativ…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wrongful Death Laws in Arizona (2026): Deadlines & Who Can Sue
Code of Federal Regulations Title 49
§ 387.9Financial responsibility, minimum levels.In forcecited in 52 of our articles
The minimum levels of financial responsibility referred to in § 387.7 are hereby prescribed as follows: Table 1 to § 387.9—Schedule of Limits—Public Liability Type of carriage Commodity transported January 1, 1985 (1) For-hire (In interstate or foreign commerce, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) Property (nonhazardous) $750,000 (2) For-hire and Private (In interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) Hazardous substances, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, transported in bulk in cargo tanks, portable tanks, or hopper-type vehicles; in bulk Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 materials; in bulk Division 2.3, Hazard Zone A material; in bulk Division 6.1, Packing Group I, Hazard Zone A material, in bulk Division 2.1 or 2.2 material; or highway route controlled quantities of a Class 7 material, as defined in 49 CFR 173.403 5,000,000 (3) For-hire and Private (In interstate or foreign commerce, in any quantity; or in intrastate commerce, in bulk only; with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) Oil listed in 49 CFR 172.101; hazardous waste, hazardous materials, or hazardous substances defined in 49…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Yeates (2009) held an MCS-90 endorsement applies only where the underlying policy gives no coverage and the carrier's insurance falls below the minimums 49 CFR 387.9 prescribes. GREAT WEST CAS. v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin (2010) found that purpose met once other coverage exceeded the 387.9 amount.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- GREAT WEST CAS. v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin (District Court, D. Minnesota 2010, 734 F. Supp. 2d 718)“…ardous commodities is $750,000. 49 U.S.C. § 31139 (b)(2); 49 C.F.R. § 387.9 . Under the Federal Motor Carrie…”
- Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Yeates (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2009, 584 F.3d 868)✓A trucker's own insurer paid the Yeateses the full $750,000 that section 387.9 sets as the minimum for non-hazardous property, and the en banc court held a second insurer's MCS-90 endorsement was therefore never triggered and added no coverage.
- American Inter-Fidelity Exchange v. American Re-Insurance Company (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1994, 17 F.3d 1018)✓A truck insurer sought reinsurance for $846,256 in deductibles it paid accident victims but could not collect; the court read the mandatory endorsement to require insurers to cover victims from the first dollar up to section 387.9's minimums, and reversed the dismissal.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Truck Accident Laws in Connecticut (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Truck Accident Laws in Alabama (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Truck Accident Laws in Iowa (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- A.R.S. Section 12-542 - Injury to person; injury when death ensues; two-year limitation(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. Section 12-2505 - Comparative negligence (full damages reduced in proportion to claimant's fault; not barred except for intentional/willful/wanton conduct)(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. Section 12-611 - Wrongful death; liability(azleg.gov).gov
- 49 CFR 387.9 - Financial responsibility, minimum levels ($750,000 general freight; $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 for hazardous materials)(law.cornell.edu)
- 49 CFR Part 395 - Hours of Service of Drivers (11-hour driving limit, 14-hour window, ELD requirement in Subpart B)(ecfr.gov).gov
- FMCSA - Hours of Service (HOS) regulations overview, property-carrying driver limits(fmcsa.dot.gov).gov
- 49 CFR Part 391 - Qualifications of Drivers (CDL, medical certification, driver-record verification)(ecfr.gov).gov