top of page



Statutes of Limitations (UTAH)

Personal Injury - 4 yrs. [U.C.A. § 78B-2-307]

Wrongful Death - 2 yrs. [U.C.A. § 78B-2-304]

Med Mal - 2 yrs. from discovery, but 4 yrs. from act/omission [U.C.A. § 78B-3-404]

Property Damage - 3 yrs. [U.C.A. § 78B-2-305]

Product Strict Liability (Personal Injury, Death of Property Damage involved) - 2 yrs. (from discovery) [U.C.A. § 78B-6-706]

Written Contracts - 6 yrs. [U.C.A. § 78B-2-309]

Oral Contracts - 4 yrs. [U.C.A. § 78B-2-307]

Breach of Warranty (when Personal Injury or Property Damage involved) - Treated as tort claims, applicable tort limitations period must be used [Davidson Lumber Sales, Inc. v. Bonneville Inv., Inc., 794 P.2d 11 (Utah 1990)]

Actions Related to Real Property Improvements (defective design, construction, etc) - 2 yrs. from discovery (statue or repose applies - see below); 6 yrs if breach of contract/warranty [U.C.A. § 78B-2-225]

Contracts for Sale (goods) and Breach of Warranty (when Personal Injury or Property Damage not involved) - 4 yrs. (from tender of delivery) [U.C.A. § 70A-2-725]


All that is required to trigger statute of limitations is sufficient information to apprise plaintiffs of underlying cause of action so as to put them on notice to make further inquiry if they harbor doubts or questions about defendant's actions [McCollin v. Synthes Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 111 (D. Utah 1999)]




Statutes of Repose (UTAH)

Products - None.

Real Property - 9 yrs. (may sue within 2 yrs. if action is discovered during 8th or 9th year) [U.C.A. § 78B-2-225]

Claims Against Public/Gov. Entities (NOTE: “Sovereign Immunity” Limitations May Apply) (UTAH)

Against All Gov. Entities - Notice within 1 yr., the entity then has 60 days to review the claim, suit within 1 yr. of claim denial or expiration of the 60-day period [U.C.A.§§ 63G-7-402; 63G-7-403; 78B-2-303]




Comparative Negligence (UTAH)

Modified comparative (damages are diminished in proportion to Plaintiff’s fault, but Plaintiff cannot recover if he is 50% at fault) [U.C.A. § 78B-5-818]




Made Whole Doctrine (MWD) (UTAH)

Recognized/applied, can be modified by policy (by clear and unambiguous language). 


In absence of express terms to the contrary, Insured must be made whole before Insurer is entitled to be reimbursed from a recovery from Tortfeasor  [Hill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 765 P.2d 864 (Utah 1988)].  If Insurer seeks to assert priority over an uncompensated victim in recovering its UIM payments, the policy provisions must clearly and unambiguously put the policyholder on notice of that fact [State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Green, 89 P.3d 97 (Utah 2003)].  The subrogation doctrine can be modified by contract, but in the absence of express contractual terms to the contrary, Insured must be made whole before Insurer is entitled to be reimbursed from a recovery from Tortfeasor [Birch v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 122 P.3d 696 (Utah App. 2005)]




Economic Loss Doctrine (ELD) (Assuming No Injury to Person or Damage to “Other Property”) (UTAH)



The proper focus in an analysis under ELD is on the source of the duties alleged to have been breached; thus, a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law [Hermansen v. Tasulis, 48 P.3d 235 (Utah 2002)]


ELD has been codified.  An action for defective design/construction is limited to breach of contract, including both express and implied warranties (such action may include damage to other property or physical personal injury if the damage or injury is caused by the defective design/construction).  Property damage does not include the failure of construction to function as designed or diminution of the value of the constructed property because of the defective design or construction.  An action for defective design or construction may be brought only by a person in privity of contract with the original contractor, architect, engineer, or the real estate developer (unless damage to other property or physical personal injury are involved) [U.C.A. § 78B-4-513]


One possible exception - If an independent duty exists under the law outside of any contractual obligations, ELD does not bar a tort claim because the claim is based on a recognized independent duty of care and thus does not fall within the scope of the rule. The question of whether a duty independent of the parties’ contractual obligations exists is a question of law, and involves the examination of the legal relationships between the parties, an analysis of the duties created by these relationships, and policy judgments applied to relationships [Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing Homeowners Ass’n v. Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing, LC, 221 P.3d 234 (Utah 2009)]. 




Certificate/Affidavit Of Merit Requirements (Claims Against Licensed Professionals) (UTAH)

An affidavit of merit must filed in all Med Mal cases [U.C.A.§ 78B-3-423]




Landlord/Tenant Subrogation (UTAH)

No subrogation allowed.  Absent express agreement between Landlord and Tenant to the contrary, insurance that Landlord purchases is presumptively purchased for Tenant’s benefit, and Tenant is coinsured under policy[GNS Partnership v. Fullmer, 873 P.2d 1157 (Utah App. 1994)]




Reimbursement of Deductible(s) (UTAH)

Auto - Pro rata (must include in subro demand). Property - No law available.




MedPay and PIP (UTAH)

Med Pay - Optional coverage and subrogation, most likely, allowed.  PIP - No subrogation allowed, except for reimbursement from Tortfeasor's insurer (enforced by way of arbitration) [U.C.A. § 31A-22-309]




Liability of Parents (UTAH)

$2,000 for intentional damages to property; reckless or willful shooting of a missile; or other intentional, unlawful or reckless acts [U.C.A.§ 78A-6-1113].  Liability of a minor driver is imputed to the person who has signed the application of the minor for permit/license [U.C.A.§53-3-211].  Vehicle owner causing or knowingly permitting a minor to drive the vehicle is jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages caused [U.C.A.§53-3-212]




Joint Liability (UTAH)

Several liability (Plaintiff can recover from each Defendant only that Defendant’s share liability).  However, the statute provides for the reallocation of the portion of fault of those who are immune from suit, provided that the fault of the non-parties is less than 40%. [U.C.A. § 78B-5-819]




Independent Cause of Action for Evidence Spoliation (UTAH)

Not recognized [Hills v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 232 P.3d 1049 (Utah 2010)]




Conflicts of Law (UTAH)

Torts - Courts will apply the most significant relationship test.  Court must first characterize the nature of the claim, determining at the outset whether the problem presented relates to torts, contracts, property, or some other field, in order to identify an appropriate set of factors to determine which forum has the “most significant relationship” to the cause of action [Waddoups v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 54 P.3d 1054 (Utah 2002)].  Contracts - Court will apply the “most significant relationship” which requires application of the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction/parties [American Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 927 P.2d 186 (Utah 1996)].




bottom of page