In Arizona, defendants in wrongful death lawsuits commonly raise comparative negligence (arguing the deceased shared fault), lack of causation (claiming their actions didn’t cause the death), assumption of risk (stating the deceased knew and accepted danger), statute of limitations expiration, or challenging the plaintiff’s legal standing to file the claim.
Wrongful death cases in Arizona represent some of the most emotionally charged and legally complex litigation families face after losing a loved one. Unlike typical personal injury claims where the victim can tell their story, wrongful death cases require surviving family members to prove their case while defendants deploy sophisticated legal strategies designed to minimize or eliminate liability. Understanding the common defenses raised in these cases doesn’t just prepare families for what lies ahead—it fundamentally shapes case strategy from day one, influences settlement negotiations, and determines whether claims succeed or fail in court. The Arizona wrongful death statute under A.R.S. § 12-612 creates specific rules about who can sue, what damages are recoverable, and how long families have to act, but it doesn’t prevent defendants from mounting aggressive defenses that can derail even meritorious claims if families aren’t prepared.
Comparative Negligence Defense
Arizona follows a pure comparative negligence system under A.R.S. § 12-2505, which means defendants frequently argue the deceased person contributed to their own death through careless actions. This defense doesn’t require proving the deceased was mostly at fault—defendants only need to establish that any percentage of fault belongs to the victim to reduce their financial responsibility proportionally.
When defendants raise comparative negligence, they scrutinize every action the deceased took before the fatal incident. In a car accident wrongful death case, they might argue the victim was speeding, distracted by a phone, or failed to wear a seatbelt. In a workplace death, they may claim the deceased ignored safety protocols or used equipment improperly. In medical malpractice cases, defendants often argue the patient failed to follow post-operative instructions or delayed seeking treatment for worsening symptoms.
The practical impact of this defense is substantial because Arizona’s pure comparative negligence rule means recovery is reduced by whatever fault percentage a jury assigns to the deceased. If a jury finds the deceased 30% responsible for their death and awards $1 million in damages, the family receives only $700,000. Unlike states with modified comparative negligence systems that bar recovery if the plaintiff is 50% or 51% at fault, Arizona allows recovery even if the deceased was 99% responsible, though the family would receive only 1% of the damages awarded.
Lack of Causation
Defendants regularly argue that their actions, while perhaps negligent, were not the actual cause of death. This defense strategy attacks the direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the fatal outcome, forcing families to prove through medical evidence, expert testimony, and investigation that the defendant’s actions were both the factual and proximate cause of death.
Causation becomes particularly contentious in cases where the deceased had pre-existing medical conditions. If someone with a heart condition dies in a car accident, the defense may argue the death resulted from the heart condition rather than crash injuries. In medical malpractice wrongful death cases, defendants frequently claim the patient’s underlying disease or condition, not the doctor’s error, caused death. In products liability cases, manufacturers might argue that misuse of the product rather than a design defect led to the fatal incident.
Arizona requires plaintiffs to establish both cause-in-fact (the defendant’s action actually caused the death) and proximate cause (the death was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions). Defendants exploit this two-part requirement by presenting alternative explanations for death, highlighting gaps in medical records, or introducing expert witnesses who testify that multiple factors contributed to death in ways that break the causal chain from defendant’s conduct to fatal outcome.
Assumption of Risk Defense
The assumption of risk defense claims the deceased voluntarily engaged in an activity knowing it carried inherent dangers, thereby accepting responsibility for potential harm. Under Arizona law, this defense applies when defendants prove the deceased had actual knowledge of specific risks and voluntarily chose to encounter them despite that knowledge.
This defense appears most frequently in recreational activity deaths, workplace accidents in dangerous industries, and situations where warning labels or safety instructions were provided but allegedly ignored. If someone dies while skydiving, rock climbing, or participating in extreme sports, defendants argue the activity’s inherent risks were known and accepted. In construction site deaths, defendants may claim workers understood the dangers of working at heights or around heavy equipment and assumed those risks by taking the job.
Arizona courts distinguish between primary assumption of risk (where the risk is inherent to the activity itself) and secondary assumption of risk (where risks arise from someone’s negligence but the deceased proceeded anyway). Primary assumption of risk can completely bar recovery, while secondary assumption of risk typically merges with comparative negligence analysis. The key legal question becomes whether the specific risk that caused death was truly inherent to the activity or resulted from the defendant’s negligence beyond normal activity dangers.
Statute of Limitations Expiration
Under A.R.S. § 12-542, Arizona imposes a two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims, calculated from the date of death rather than the date of the injury or negligent act that caused death. Defendants monitor these deadlines carefully and raise statute of limitations defenses immediately when claims are filed even one day late, seeking complete dismissal of the case.
The two-year deadline creates particular challenges in medical malpractice wrongful death cases where patients may survive for months or years after the negligent treatment before eventually dying from its effects. If a surgical error occurs in 2020 but the patient doesn’t die until 2023, the statute of limitations doesn’t begin until 2023, giving the family until 2025 to file. However, defendants often dispute whether the death was actually caused by the earlier negligence, attempting to argue that the limitations period should have started at the time of the negligent act.
Arizona law provides limited exceptions to the two-year deadline. The discovery rule doesn’t typically extend wrongful death filing deadlines because the statute runs from the date of death, which is an objective, known event. The fraudulent concealment exception under A.R.S. § 12-543 may extend the deadline if defendants actively hid facts that prevented the family from discovering their claim, though courts apply this exception narrowly. Minority tolling provisions under A.R.S. § 12-502 can pause the statute of limitations if all potential statutory beneficiaries are minors at the time of death.
Lack of Standing to Sue
Arizona’s wrongful death statute at A.R.S. § 12-612 specifies that only certain individuals have legal standing to file a wrongful death claim. Defendants frequently challenge whether the person bringing the lawsuit is actually authorized under Arizona law to pursue the claim, seeking dismissal based on lack of standing before ever addressing the merits of the case.
The statute creates a specific priority order for who can file. During the deceased’s lifetime and for the first year after death, only the personal representative of the estate may file a wrongful death claim. If no claim has been filed after one year, the surviving spouse, children, parents, or appointed guardian for minor children may file directly. Defendants scrutinize whether the plaintiff has been properly appointed as personal representative through probate court proceedings or whether the one-year mark has actually passed if a family member files directly.
Standing challenges become particularly complex in cases involving unmarried partners, stepchildren without formal adoption, or estranged family members. Arizona law does not recognize domestic partners or common-law spouses as having automatic standing to file wrongful death claims, regardless of how long the relationship lasted. Stepchildren only have standing if they were legally adopted by the deceased. If a parent abandoned or had no relationship with the deceased for many years, defendants may argue they lack standing despite biological connection.
Immunity Defenses
Certain defendants in Arizona enjoy legal immunity from wrongful death lawsuits under specific circumstances, creating complete bars to liability that prevent families from recovering any damages regardless of how clear the negligence was. Government entities, employers in workers’ compensation situations, and individuals protected by Good Samaritan laws frequently raise immunity defenses.
Government Immunity and Notice Requirements
Arizona government entities operate under the Arizona Governmental Liability Act found in A.R.S. § 12-820 through 12-821, which provides broad immunity from lawsuits with specific limited exceptions. While the law waives immunity for certain negligent acts by government employees acting within the scope of their employment, it maintains immunity for discretionary functions, legislative or judicial actions, and certain operational decisions.
When a family can sue a government entity under an exception to immunity, they must comply with strict notice requirements under A.R.S. § 12-821.01. This statute requires filing a notice of claim with the government entity within 180 days of the death—substantially shorter than the two-year wrongful death statute of limitations. The notice must include specific information about the incident, legal basis for liability, and damages claimed. Failure to file this notice within 180 days or filing a deficient notice that lacks required information typically results in complete dismissal of the claim even if the government was clearly negligent.
Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity
When a workplace accident causes an employee’s death, Arizona’s workers’ compensation system under A.R.S. § 23-1022 generally provides the exclusive remedy against the employer. This means surviving family members typically cannot file a wrongful death lawsuit against the employer even if the death resulted from clear negligence or safety violations—they’re limited to receiving workers’ compensation death benefits instead.
The exclusivity rule protects employers from wrongful death liability in exchange for providing no-fault workers’ compensation coverage. However, important exceptions exist. If the employer intentionally caused the employee’s death or injury, exclusivity doesn’t apply under A.R.S. § 23-1022(A). If a third party (not the employer) caused the death—such as a negligent driver, defective equipment manufacturer, or property owner—the family can pursue a wrongful death claim against that third party while also receiving workers’ compensation benefits. When employees work for uninsured employers who failed to carry required workers’ compensation coverage, families may be able to sue the employer directly in civil court.
No Duty Owed Defense
Defendants argue they owed no legal duty of care to the deceased, attempting to defeat wrongful death claims before even reaching questions of breach, causation, or damages. Arizona law imposes duties only in specific relationships or circumstances, and defendants contend that without an established legal duty, no liability exists regardless of what happened.
The duty analysis varies dramatically by context. Property owners generally owe a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises for invitees (business visitors) and licensees (social guests) but owe only minimal duty to avoid willful or wanton conduct toward trespassers under Arizona premises liability law. Drivers owe other motorists a duty to operate vehicles safely and follow traffic laws. Doctors owe patients a duty to provide care meeting accepted medical standards. Manufacturers owe consumers a duty to design reasonably safe products and provide adequate warnings of non-obvious dangers.
Defendants exploit gaps in duty by arguing the deceased fell outside protected categories. If someone dies on property after breaking in, the owner claims only trespasser status with minimal duty owed. If a person voluntarily enters an obviously dangerous situation, defendants argue they assumed the risk and no duty to protect them existed. In cases involving third-party criminal acts, defendants argue they had no duty to prevent independent criminal conduct by others unless special circumstances created such a duty.
Intervening and Superseding Cause
This defense strategy admits the defendant may have acted negligently but argues that some other event broke the causal chain between their negligence and the death. Defendants claim an intervening cause—something that happened after their negligent act—was either unforeseeable or so significant that it became the superseding cause of death, relieving them of liability.
Common intervening cause arguments include subsequent medical negligence (claiming doctors treating the victim made errors that actually caused death), criminal acts by third parties (arguing an unforeseeable crime caused death rather than the defendant’s original negligence), or the deceased’s own actions after the defendant’s negligence (contending the victim’s decisions broke the causal chain). In car accident cases, defendants might argue that poor medical treatment at the hospital, not crash injuries, caused death. In premises liability cases, they may claim an unforeseeable criminal assault by a third party superseded any duty they had to maintain safe premises.
Arizona courts analyze whether the intervening event was foreseeable and whether the original negligence remained a substantial factor in causing death. If the intervening cause was a natural consequence or foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence, it typically doesn’t break the causal chain. If the intervening cause was truly independent, unforeseeable, and solely responsible for the death, it may relieve the original defendant of liability.
Proximate Cause and Foreseeability Challenges
Even when defendants cannot deny their negligence directly caused death, they frequently argue the death was not a foreseeable consequence of their actions, attacking the proximate cause element required in wrongful death claims. Arizona law requires not just factual causation but proximate causation—meaning the harm must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct.
Defendants use foreseeability arguments to distance themselves from unusual chains of events, pre-existing conditions that complicated outcomes, or deaths that occurred in unexpected ways. If a minor car accident triggers a fatal heart attack in someone with unknown heart disease, defendants argue the death was unforeseeable. If a slip and fall leads to hospitalization where the patient contracts a fatal infection, defendants contend the infection was an unforeseeable intervening cause.
Arizona courts examine whether the specific manner of harm needed to be foreseeable or only the general type of harm. The eggshell skull rule generally requires defendants to take victims as they find them, meaning pre-existing conditions don’t break proximate causation if the negligence aggravated those conditions or made them fatal. However, defendants still argue that deaths involving multiple contributing factors or unusual progressions were not foreseeable consequences of their specific negligent act.
Contributory Negligence of Third Parties
Defendants attempt to shift blame by arguing that other parties, not present in the lawsuit, were actually responsible for the death. This defense strategy seeks to reduce the defendant’s liability percentage by spreading fault among multiple actors, even if those actors are not defendants in the case.
In multi-vehicle accidents, defendants blame other drivers not named in the lawsuit. In medical malpractice cases, defendants point to previous healthcare providers whose treatment contributed to the patient’s condition. In premises liability cases, property owners blame contractors or maintenance companies. In products liability cases, manufacturers blame retailers, distributors, or even the deceased for modifying or misusing the product.
Arizona’s comparative fault system under A.R.S. § 12-2506 requires juries to allocate fault percentages among all responsible parties, including individuals not named as defendants. This means defendants can successfully reduce their liability by proving other parties shared responsibility, even if those parties are never sued. Strategic considerations about which parties to include in a lawsuit become critical, as defendants will aggressively attempt to blame absent parties who cannot defend themselves or present contrary evidence.
Challenging Damages and Economic Loss
Even when liability appears clear, defendants mount aggressive challenges to the amount and types of damages claimed. Arizona’s wrongful death statute at A.R.S. § 12-612 allows recovery of damages for economic losses, loss of companionship, and in cases involving gross negligence, punitive damages. Defendants scrutinize every element of damages, demanding detailed proof and arguing that claimed losses are speculative, unsubstantiated, or not permitted under Arizona law.
Economic damage challenges focus on proving that future lost income, lost benefits, and lost household services cannot be calculated with reasonable certainty. Defendants hire economists who present lower projections based on different assumptions about work life expectancy, promotion likelihood, or economic trends. They argue that the deceased may not have continued working until normal retirement age, might have experienced unemployment periods, or had health issues that would have limited earning capacity.
Non-economic damages for loss of companionship, consortium, and emotional suffering face challenges that these losses are inherently subjective and that the amounts claimed are excessive. Defendants argue that shorter relationships warrant lower damages, that estranged relationships had little value, or that the deceased’s own health issues or life choices reduced the quality of the relationship. When punitive damages are sought based on gross negligence or recklessness, defendants vigorously contest whether their conduct met Arizona’s high standard for punitive awards and argue that any punitive amount should be minimized.
Medical Emergency Defense
In medical malpractice wrongful death cases, healthcare providers frequently invoke the sudden medical emergency defense. This defense argues that the patient experienced an unforeseeable medical crisis requiring immediate decisions under extreme pressure, and that the standard of care should be evaluated differently than routine medical situations.
Defendants claim that fast-moving, life-threatening conditions required split-second decisions where hindsight analysis is unfair. They argue that the same level of care possible in controlled, planned procedures cannot be expected during emergencies. Arizona courts recognize that the standard of care during genuine emergencies accounts for the pressure and limited information available, though healthcare providers must still act reasonably given the emergency circumstances.
Plaintiff attorneys counter this defense by demonstrating that the emergency itself resulted from earlier negligence, that the healthcare provider made the situation worse through poor emergency decisions, or that the situation wasn’t truly an emergency requiring departure from standard protocols. Medical expert testimony becomes critical in establishing whether the circumstances truly constituted an unforeseeable emergency or whether proper care earlier would have prevented the crisis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if the defendant proves I was partially at fault for my family member’s death?
Under Arizona’s pure comparative negligence rule in A.R.S. § 12-2505, your recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to your deceased family member, but you can still recover damages even if your loved one was primarily responsible. For example, if the jury awards $500,000 but finds your family member 40% at fault, you receive $300,000. This system differs from other states where being 50% or more at fault bars all recovery—Arizona allows recovery regardless of fault percentage, making it crucial to minimize the deceased’s assigned fault percentage through strong evidence and expert testimony rather than accepting that partial fault destroys your case.
The comparative fault determination happens during trial when the jury receives instructions to assign percentage responsibility to all parties who contributed to the death. Defense attorneys will aggressively argue your family member’s fault through accident reconstruction, witness testimony, and expert opinions about how the deceased’s actions contributed to the incident. Your attorney counters by focusing on the defendant’s conduct, demonstrating that any actions by your family member were reasonable under the circumstances, or showing that the defendant’s negligence was so substantial that it overwhelms any minor contribution by the deceased.
Can a defendant use text messages or social media posts from before the accident as evidence?
Yes, defendants routinely subpoena the deceased’s phone records, social media accounts, emails, and text messages looking for evidence to support their defenses. They search for statements suggesting your family member knew about risks they were taking, messages sent while driving that indicate distraction, posts about ignoring medical advice, or any content they can use to argue comparative negligence, assumption of risk, or pre-existing conditions. Arizona’s broad discovery rules allow defendants to request this electronic evidence if it’s reasonably calculated to lead to admissible information.
Defense lawyers specifically look for posts or messages showing your family member engaged in risky behavior, ignored safety warnings, consumed alcohol or drugs before the incident, or had pre-existing medical conditions they didn’t disclose. They also search for contradictions between what family members claim about the deceased’s health, income, or relationship quality and what digital evidence shows. Families should never delete digital evidence as this can constitute spoliation with serious legal consequences, but should inform their attorney about any potentially problematic content early so it can be properly addressed rather than discovered unexpectedly during litigation.
How long does the defendant have to file their defenses after I file a wrongful death lawsuit?
Under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12, defendants typically have 20 days after being served with the wrongful death complaint to file their answer and assert all defenses. This deadline can extend to 30 days if the defendant waives formal service. Once the answer is filed, defendants must include all affirmative defenses—legal arguments like statute of limitations, comparative negligence, assumption of risk, or immunity—or risk waiving them permanently under Rule 8(c).
The initial answer represents just the beginning of the defense strategy. After filing, defendants conduct extensive discovery over the following months, deposing witnesses, requesting documents, and hiring experts to support their defenses. They may file amended answers adding new defenses as they uncover information, or file dispositive motions seeking to dismiss the case before trial based on immunity, lack of standing, or statute of limitations defenses. The full defense strategy typically doesn’t become apparent until after substantial discovery when defendants file their motion for summary judgment attempting to win the case without trial by arguing no genuine factual disputes exist and they’re entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
What evidence do I need to overcome a causation defense in a medical malpractice wrongful death case?
Overcoming causation defenses in medical malpractice wrongful death cases requires expert medical testimony establishing both that the healthcare provider’s negligence occurred and that this negligence, more likely than not, caused the death. Arizona law requires plaintiff’s expert witnesses to demonstrate they’re qualified in the same specialty as the defendant doctor and to explain how the defendant departed from accepted medical standards and how that departure directly led to the fatal outcome. You need medical records, pathology reports, autopsy results, and expert analysis connecting the negligent act to the death through a clear chain of medical causation.
Defendants will present their own medical experts arguing that pre-existing disease, the natural progression of the patient’s condition, or other intervening factors caused death rather than any treatment error. Your case needs expert testimony ruling out these alternative explanations or demonstrating that the negligence substantially contributed to death even if other factors were also present. Causation becomes particularly challenging when the patient was already seriously ill, when death occurred days or weeks after the alleged negligence, or when multiple healthcare providers treated the patient. Detailed medical chronologies, expert reports explaining each stage of treatment and its effects, and elimination of alternative causes through thorough medical analysis become essential to defeating causation challenges.
If my spouse died at work, can the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance raise defenses against my wrongful death claim?
When workplace deaths occur, Arizona’s workers’ compensation system under A.R.S. § 23-1022 provides death benefits through the employer’s insurance while generally preventing wrongful death lawsuits against the employer—this is called the exclusive remedy rule. The workers’ compensation insurer cannot raise traditional negligence defenses like comparative fault because workers’ compensation is a no-fault system, meaning you receive benefits regardless of who caused the accident. However, you cannot pursue additional damages through a wrongful death lawsuit against the employer even if clear negligence or safety violations occurred.
The exclusive remedy rule contains critical exceptions allowing wrongful death claims despite workers’ compensation coverage. If the employer intentionally injured your spouse or if the employer lacked required workers’ compensation insurance, the exclusive remedy bar doesn’t apply and you can file a civil wrongful death lawsuit. Additionally, if a third party not employed by the company caused the death—such as a negligent driver, equipment manufacturer, or contractor—you can pursue a wrongful death claim against that third party while also receiving workers’ compensation death benefits. Identifying whether third-party liability exists becomes crucial in workplace death cases because third-party wrongful death claims face normal litigation defenses but offer substantially higher damage recovery than workers’ compensation’s limited death benefits.
How does Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations interact with probate proceedings in wrongful death cases?
Arizona’s two-year wrongful death statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-542 runs from the date of death, creating a firm deadline that probate proceedings do not automatically extend. Even if probate takes months to complete and a personal representative isn’t appointed until well after the death, the two-year clock starts on the date of death. This means families must act quickly to either open probate and have a personal representative appointed who can file the wrongful death claim, or wait until one year after death when eligible family members can file directly under A.R.S. § 12-612 if no personal representative has filed.
The interaction between probate timing and wrongful death filing deadlines creates strategic challenges. If you wait for normal probate proceedings to conclude before addressing the wrongful death claim, you risk running out of time as the two-year deadline approaches. Many families must initiate probate specifically to have someone with standing to file the wrongful death lawsuit, which requires court hearings, notice to interested parties, and formal appointment. Defendants who know the statute of limitations is approaching may deliberately delay settlement negotiations hoping the deadline passes, giving them a complete defense to the claim through statute of limitations expiration regardless of how strong your case is.
Can a defendant force my minor children to be deposed or examined by their experts?
Arizona courts generally protect minor children from burdensome discovery in wrongful death cases, though defendants can seek limited discovery when children’s claims form a central part of the damages case. Under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30, defendants may request depositions of minor children but must demonstrate necessity and obtain court approval if the parties don’t agree. Courts weigh the child’s age, the relevance of their testimony, the emotional impact of the deposition, and whether the information can be obtained through less intrusive means like parental testimony.
When minor children claim severe emotional distress or psychological damages beyond the normal grief expected from losing a parent, defendants often successfully argue they’re entitled to have the children examined by defense mental health experts under Rule 35. These independent medical examinations assess whether the claimed psychological injuries actually exist and were caused by the death rather than other factors. Courts typically impose protective conditions such as limiting examination time, allowing a parent to be present, or restricting the scope of questioning. Parents should discuss with their attorney early in the case what level of emotional distress damages to claim for children, as higher damage claims trigger more invasive defense discovery including potential depositions and psychological examinations.
What should I do if the defendant claims my family member signed a liability waiver before the incident?
Liability waivers and release agreements don’t automatically prevent wrongful death claims in Arizona, though defendants frequently argue signed waivers bar lawsuits. Arizona courts enforce waivers when they clearly, conspicuously, and unambiguously express the intent to release liability for negligence, but courts scrutinize wrongful death waiver defenses carefully because the deceased cannot testify about what they understood when signing. Waivers face challenges if they’re buried in fine print, use vague language, don’t specifically mention death or serious injury, or attempt to waive liability for gross negligence or intentional acts which Arizona law generally prohibits.
Strong arguments against waiver enforcement include demonstrating the waiver was procedurally unconscionable (signed under pressure, without opportunity to read, or without explanation), that it violates public policy, that it doesn’t cover the specific type of negligence that caused death, or that the defendant’s conduct exceeded ordinary negligence reaching gross negligence or recklessness which cannot be waived. Expert testimony about industry standards, analysis of the waiver’s language compared to valid releases, and evidence about the circumstances under which your family member signed become critical. Even valid waivers signed by the deceased don’t necessarily bar minor children from pursuing their own wrongful death claims in many circumstances, as children cannot be bound by parental waivers of their independent rights.
Protecting Your Wrongful Death Claim Against Common Defenses
The defenses outlined throughout this article demonstrate why Arizona wrongful death cases demand immediate action and experienced legal representation. Insurance companies and corporate defendants employ teams of lawyers who begin building defenses within hours of a fatal incident, preserving evidence that supports their narrative while searching for any fact they can use to reduce or eliminate liability. Families grieving a loss rarely realize how quickly critical evidence disappears, witnesses forget details, or procedural deadlines approach until their claim faces serious challenges.
Successful wrongful death claims require more than proving the defendant caused your family member’s death—they require anticipating every defense strategy, building evidence that defeats those defenses before they’re formally raised, and understanding which defenses apply to your specific situation under Arizona law. Life Justice Law Group represents Arizona families in wrongful death cases with a comprehensive approach that addresses liability defenses, damages challenges, and procedural obstacles from day one. Our team of experienced wrongful death attorneys conducts immediate investigations, secures expert witnesses in relevant fields, preserves critical evidence before it disappears, and develops case strategies that neutralize common defenses before they gain traction. Contact us today at (480) 378-8088 for a free consultation to discuss how we can protect your family’s wrongful death claim against the aggressive defense tactics you’ll inevitably face. Taking action now prevents the statute of limitations, standing issues, and evidence preservation problems that later become insurmountable barriers to justice.