Case Summaries
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 3 No. 1 Pg. 31 |
| Pages | 31 |
| Publication year | 1990 |
Clark Nielsen, J.
STATUTE OF REPOSE—OPEN COURTS PROVISION (Art. I, Sect. 11)
The Utah Supreme Court invalidated the statute of repose insulating architects and engineers from liability seven years after the completion of construction. In Horton v. Goldminer's Daughter, 118 Utah Adv. Rep. 37 (9/29/89) (J. Stewart), the issue was presented by certification from the federal district court. In Sun Valley Water Beds v. Herrn Hughes and Son, Inc., 118 Utah Adv. Rep. 27 (9/29/89) (J. Hall), the Court reversed a summary judgment for the contractor. The Court struck down Utah Code Ann. Sect. 78-12-25.5 as a violation of the "open courts" provision of the Utah State Constitution, Art. 1, Sect. 11. Although all repose statutes which similarly limit the right to recover for injuries are not necessarily unconstitutional, the strong reliance upon Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Ill. P.2d 670 (Utah 1985) further undermines their possible validity.
A statute of repose differs from a limitation period because, in this case, repose bars all actions against planners, designers and builders of a building for injuries seven years after construction. Repose decrees that after a certain date no claim can exist. A limitation statute causes a claim to expire but only after it has arisen and time has passed with no action taken by the claimant.
The Court attributes the repose statute to extensive and successful legislative lobbying by insurers to limit the duration of their liability for negligence damage claims. Although recognizing that other states have upheld similar statutory limitations, the Court observed that their justifications were firmly rejected in Berry. Under Berry, a statute which limits a person's remedy by due course of law must (1) provide a reasonable and effective alternative remedy which is substantially equal in value of benefit to the remedy abrogated and provides comparable protection of the person, property and reputation; or (2) if no substitute or alternate remedy is provided, the legislative enactment must show that a clear social or economic evil is being eliminated and that the evil is not being eliminated by an arbitrary or unreasonable means.
Applying these Berry principles in the present matters, the Court concludes that the repose statute does not provide a reasonable alternative remedy and does not show a clear social or economic evil. Insurer liability, high...
To continue reading
Request your trial