In Hanson Aggregates Ariz., Inc. v. Rissling Const. Group, Inc., 212 Ariz. 92, 94,7, 127 P.3d 910, 912 (App. 2006), appellee failed to serve appellant with a copy of the bond after it was recorded. 212 Ariz. at 93,3, 127 P.3d at 911. When appellant filed suit against the lien-discharge bond, appellee moved to dismiss arguing that the bond was discharged because appellant failed to commence its suit against the discharge bond within six months of recording the lien. Id. at 93-94,4, 127 P.3d at 911-12. The Court held that 33-1004(F) allows a claimant on a bond additional time to commence an action if the claimant is not served with the bond as the statute requires. Id. at 94,10, 127 P.3d at 912. Section 33-1004(F) provides: In the event a copy of the bond is not served upon the claimant as provided in subsection C of this section, the claimant shall have six months after the discovery of such bond to commence an action thereon, except that no action may be commenced on such bond after two years from the date it was recorded as provided in this section. The court reasoned that the filing of the bond discharges the lien whether the claimant is aware of the bond or not, and consequently, the bond principal would have little reason to serve the lien claimant absent a motivation to do so. Id. at 95,13, 127 P.3d at 913. The court's only mention of subsection (D)(2) occurred in its discussion on service compliance. It stated that "the statute also affords a claimant, once served with the bond, ninety days after being served with a discharge bond to bring a claim against the bond principals and sureties," citing subsections (C) and (D)(2). Id. at17.