Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant, who worked at an oil refinery operated by Chevron U.S.A., Inc., was instructed by her immediate supervisor to add sulfuric acid to an open-air pit containing waste products from the refinery. When Appellant did so, she was injured by a poisonous gas produced by the resulting chemical reaction. Appellant received workers’ compensation benefits for her injuries. Thereafter, Appellant sued Chevron, alleging that it was liable for an intentional tort because her supervisors knew she would be injured when she was instructed to add sulfuric acid to the pit. The district court granted summary judgment for Chevron, concluding that Appellant failed to produce evidence that would support a conclusion that one of Chevron’s managers had the requisite knowledge or intent to support an intentional tort claim. The Supreme Court ruled, holding (1) there was a dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment because a reasonable jury could conclude that at least one of Chevron’s managers knew that Appellant would be injured when her supervisor instructed her to add sulfuric acid to the pit; and (2) the district court correctly ruled that the election of remedies doctrine did not bar Appellant’s suit. View "Helf v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the United States in a federal district court alleging that medical staff at the VA medical center in Salt Lake City negligently caused his son’s death. The district court certified two questions to the Utah Supreme Court asking whether the noneconomic damages cap in section 78B-3-410 of the Malpractice Act permissible as applied to wrongful death cases under Utah Const. art. XVI, 5, which prohibits damage caps in wrongful death cases. The Supreme Court held that the damages cap in section 78B-3-410 is unconstitutional as applied to cases of wrongful death under article XVI, section 5 of the Utah Constitution. View "Smith v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, filed a complaint against his employer, alleging that he was terminated for refusing to violate the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that he was fired for refusing to break the law by complying the company’s ongoing violation of usury laws in numerous states. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff was an at-will employee and that his termination did not violate a clear and substantial public policy of the state. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim, where Plaintiff failed to invoke a clear and substantial public policy that would have prohibited his employer from terminating him, and where rule 1.13(b) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct does not reflect the type of public policy that prevents the termination of an at-will employee; and (2) the district court erred when it denied Plaintiff’s request for a hearing, but the error was harmless. View "Pang v. Int’l Document Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, filed a complaint against his employer, alleging that he was terminated for refusing to violate the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that he was fired for refusing to break the law by complying the company’s ongoing violation of usury laws in numerous states. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Plaintiff was an at-will employee and that his termination did not violate a clear and substantial public policy of the state. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim, where Plaintiff failed to invoke a clear and substantial public policy that would have prohibited his employer from terminating him, and where rule 1.13(b) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct does not reflect the type of public policy that prevents the termination of an at-will employee; and (2) the district court erred when it denied Plaintiff’s request for a hearing, but the error was harmless. View "Pang v. Int’l Document Servs." on Justia Law

Utah County established an off-site work-release program for potentially dangerous inmates in its custody and screened each inmate before placing them with employers. Shawn Michael Leonard escaped while on the work-release program and assaulted Plaintiff near the Provo River Trail. Plaintiff survived, but her injuries were substantial. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the County. The district court ruled in favor of the County, concluding that it did not owe a duty to Plaintiff and, alternatively, that the Utah Governmental Immunity Act barred all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision dismissing Plaintiff’s negligence claims against the County, holding (1) the County owed Plaintiff a duty of care because it took affirmative steps that created a risk of harm; but (2) the Governmental Immunity Act is not unconstitutional as applied in this case, where work-release programs are essential to the core governmental activity of housing and rehabilitating inmates, and therefore, governmental immunity barred Plaintiff’s claim. View "Scott v. Universal Indus. Sales" on Justia Law

At dispute in this case was compensation paid to Attorney by Law Firm for work Attorney performed on several class-action contingency fee cases involving the weight-loss pill Fen-Phen. Attorney was paid approximately fifteen percent of the fees generated by the Fen-Phen cases. Attorney filed suit claiming (1) the parties agreed that the general compensation agreement, which entitled Attorney to eighty percent of the fees he generated from hourly work, would apply to the fees generated by the Fen-Phen litigation; (2) under quantum meruit, Law Firm and additional defendants were unjustly enriched by his work; and (3) a second law firm that worked on the Fen-Phen litigation and received a portion of the fees was liable to him under Utah’s Fraudulent Transfer Act (FTA). The district court dismissed Attorney’s contract claim and concluded that Attorney failed to establish that he provided services more than the amount he received from the Fen-Phen fees. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the dismissal of Attorney’s contract claim; (2) reversed the denial of Attorney’s jury demand and, sending the claim back to the jury, clarified the correct measure of damages on the quantum meruit claim; and (3) upheld the dismissal of the individual defendants from both the quantum meruit claim and the FTA claim. View "Jones v. Mackey Price Thompson & Ostler" on Justia Law

In this personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident, Robert and Terri Zeller filed a complaint against Charlotte Nixon alleging claims for negligence and loss of consortium. The Zellers submitted their claims for arbitration under Utah Code 31A-22-321, which provides that the election of arbitration stands unless a notice of rescission is filed within ninety days. After the ninety-day rescission period had passed, the Zellers moved to amend their complaint to add a claim for negligent entrustment against Nixon & Nixon, Inc. Nixon opposed the motion to amend and filed a motion to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the Zellers were justified in seeking the amendment, thus freeing the Zellers of the statutory limitations on their claims against Nixon and allowing their claims to proceed against Nixon & Nixon. The Supreme Court (1) reversed as to the claims against Nixon, as those claims were irretrievably subject to arbitration given the Zellers’ failure to rescind their election of arbitration within ninety days; and (2) affirmed as to the claims against Nixon & Nixon, holding that the Zellers’ earlier election of arbitration as to their claim against Nixon did not encompass their subsequent claim against the corporation. View "Zeller v. Nixon" on Justia Law

Orlando Millenia (Plaintiff), the lender on a multi-million dollar real estate transaction, filed this suit alleging that United Title Services of Utah, Inc. breached its fiduciary duty as an escrow agent in the property transaction. In addition, Plaintiff asserted claims for vicarious liability against Stewart Title Insurance Co. and First American Title Insurance Co. under Utah Code 31A-23a-407, a provision that Plaintiff viewed as imposing vicarious liability on Stewart and First American for United Title’s actions as escrow agent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty that survived Defendants’ motions for summary judgment; and (2) Plaintiff successfully stated a claim for vicarious liability under section 407. View "Orlando Millenia, LC v. United Title Servs. of Utah, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved a lease agreement between Greyhound Lines, Inc., the lessee, and Utah Transit Authority (UTA), the lessor, for a section of UTA’s intermodal transportation facility (intermodal hub). The insurance procurement provision of the lease agreement required Greyhound to purchase commercial general liability insurance covering UTA. At issue was whether the provision required that this insurance cover UTA’s negligent acts. This litigation resulted from a Greyhound passenger’s fall from a concrete pedestrian ramp during a layover at the intermodal hub. UTA admitted negligence in not installing a handrail on the pedestrian ramp. UTA settled the injured passenger’s claim and requested that Greyhound reimburse it for the cost of the claim under the lease agreement. Greyhound refused. The district court entered judgment against Greyhound. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under Utah law, an agreement to procure insurance for the benefit of another is not subject to strict construction; (2) the district court did not err when it concluded that the injured passenger’s claim triggered Greyhound’s duty to procure insurance that covered UTA’s negligent acts; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding UTA’s attorney fees. View "Utah Transit Auth. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

During a rainstorm a culvert under a state road became obstructed, causing water to back up on the side of the road. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) workers tried to unclog the culvert but were unsuccessful and subsequently left the scene. The pooled water eventually caused the road to collapse. That night, Plaintiffs’ vehicles careened into the chasm, injuring two people and killing a fifteen-year-old. Plaintiffs sued UDOT, alleging negligent maintenance of the road and the clogged culvert. The district court granted summary judgment for UDOT, concluding that it was immune under the Governmental Immunity Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that UDOT failed to meet its burden of establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Barneck v. Utah Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law