Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Collier v. Heinzgreen2 sentences2013Rather, the dispute is solely between the Association and McQueen and “under the third-party exception, attorney fees incurred in litigation between the contracting parties are not recoverable by the non-breaching party as damages.” Collier, 827 P.2d at 984 . ¶27 Moreover, this exception requires that damages result from a breach of a contract. 2008The present case does not fall under any of the previously-recognized exceptions to the general rule against awarding attorney fees in tort cases. 1 *925 See Gardiner, 2006 UT App 496, ¶¶ 7-8 , 153 P.3d 791 (“‘The award of attorney fees as consequential damages, outside the context of statutory and contractual authorization, should be limited to ... two situations ...: insurance contracts and the third-party exception.’ ” (omissions in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Collier v. Heinz, 827 P.2d 982, 984 (Utah Ct.App.1992))). | 3 | 3 |
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Callgreen2 sentences2018See Call , 712 P.2d at 237-238 ("An award of attorney fees is not warranted 'where the plaintiff merely stated its position and initiated this action for determination of what appears to be a justiciable controversy.' " (citation omitted) ); W. 2017See Call, 712 P.2d at 237–238 (“An award of attorney fees is not warranted ‘where the plaintiff merely stated its position and initiated this action for determination of what appears to be a justiciable controversy.’” (citation omitted)); W. | 2 | 2 |
Windsor Mobile Estates, LLC v. Sweazeygreen2 sentences2026P. 14(a); see also Windsor Mobile Estates, LLC v. Sweazey, 2019 UT App 44, ¶ 7 , 440 P.3d 864 (“A third-party claim may be asserted under rule 14(a) only when the third party’s liability is in some way dependent on the outcome of the main claim or when the third party is secondarily liable to the defending party.” (cleaned up)). 2026P. 14(a); see also Windsor Mobile Estates, LLC v. Sweazey, 2019 UT App 44, ¶ 7 , 440 P.3d 864 (“A third-party claim may be asserted under rule 14(a) only when the third party’s liability is in some way dependent on the outcome of the main claim or when the third party is secondarily liable to the defending party.” (cleaned up)). | 1 | 1 |
Aguila v. Planned Parenthood of Utahgreen1 sentence2023See Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 2004 UT 101, ¶ 8 , 104 P.3d 1226 (“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss admits the facts alleged in the complaint but challenges the plaintiff’s right to relief based on those facts.”). 20210457-CA 11 2023 UT App 49 Aguila v. Planned Parenthood a third party fell outside the scope of employment when hospital policies expressly forbade such disclosure but noting that “an act of an employee, although forbidden, may be within the scope of employment”); Korntved v. Advanced Healthcare, SC, 2005 WI App 197, ¶¶ 1, 3, 12 , 704 N.W.2d 597 (affirming a summary | 1 | 1 |
Korntved v. Advanced Healthcare, SCgreen2 sentences2023See Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 2004 UT 101, ¶ 8 , 104 P.3d 1226 (“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss admits the facts alleged in the complaint but challenges the plaintiff’s right to relief based on those facts.”). 20210457-CA 11 2023 UT App 49 Aguila v. Planned Parenthood a third party fell outside the scope of employment when hospital policies expressly forbade such disclosure but noting that “an act of an employee, although forbidden, may be within the scope of employment”); Korntved v. Advanced Healthcare, SC, 2005 WI App 197, ¶¶ 1, 3, 12 , 704 N.W.2d 597 (affirming a summary 2023See Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 2004 UT 101, ¶ 8 , 104 P.3d 1226 (“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss admits the facts alleged in the complaint but challenges the plaintiff’s right to relief based on those facts.”). 20210457-CA 11 2023 UT App 49 Aguila v. Planned Parenthood a third party fell outside the scope of employment when hospital policies expressly forbade such disclosure but noting that “an act of an employee, although forbidden, may be within the scope of employment”); Korntved v. Advanced Healthcare, SC, 2005 WI App 197, ¶¶ 1, 3, 12 , 704 N.W.2d 597 (affirming a summary | 1 | 1 |
Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc.green2 sentences2023See Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 2004 UT 101, ¶ 8 , 104 P.3d 1226 (“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss admits the facts alleged in the complaint but challenges the plaintiff’s right to relief based on those facts.”). 20210457-CA 11 2023 UT App 49 Aguila v. Planned Parenthood a third party fell outside the scope of employment when hospital policies expressly forbade such disclosure but noting that “an act of an employee, although forbidden, may be within the scope of employment”); Korntved v. Advanced Healthcare, SC, 2005 WI App 197, ¶¶ 1, 3, 12 , 704 N.W.2d 597 (affirming a summary 2023See Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 2004 UT 101, ¶ 8 , 104 P.3d 1226 (“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss admits the facts alleged in the complaint but challenges the plaintiff’s right to relief based on those facts.”). 20210457-CA 11 2023 UT App 49 Aguila v. Planned Parenthood a third party fell outside the scope of employment when hospital policies expressly forbade such disclosure but noting that “an act of an employee, although forbidden, may be within the scope of employment”); Korntved v. Advanced Healthcare, SC, 2005 WI App 197, ¶¶ 1, 3, 12 , 704 N.W.2d 597 (affirming a summary | 1 | 1 |
Broadwater v. Old Republic Suretygreen2 sentences2021In Broadwater v. Old Republic Surety, we declined to apply the third-party exception to a request for attorney fees in a case involving conversion of stock. 854 P.2d 527 , 534–35 (Utah 1993). 2021See id. at 535 (noting that the third-party exception applies only “to the recovery of fees incurred in resolving third-party disputes caused by a defendant’s negligence” and does not extend to “fees incurred in recovering damages from that defendant”). ¶15 Sevastopoulos’s remaining objections are not properly presented for our review. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sosa-Hurtadogreen2 sentences2019See State v. Sosa-Hurtado, 2018 UT App 35, ¶ 31 , 424 P.3d 948 (identifying temporal relationship, spatial relationship, and threat to the third party as factors relevant to the inquiry called for by our cases). ¶49 Sosa-Hurtado’s intent and knowledge are evident. 2019See State v. Sosa-Hurtado, 2018 UT App 35, ¶ 31 , 424 P.3d 948 (identifying temporal relationship, spatial relationship, and threat to the third party as factors relevant to the inquiry called for by our cases). ¶49 Sosa-Hurtado’s intent and knowledge are evident. | 1 | 1 |
Adkins v. Uncle Bart's, Inc.green2 sentences2001In Adkins v. Uncle Bart's, Inc., 2000 UT 14,¶¶ 31-32 , 1 P.3d 528 , the supreme court did not allow the injured party to bring a third party claim against the vendor for wrongful death under the Dram-shop Act when the Dramshop Act explicitly allowed new causes of actions, but did not provide for an action for wrongful death. 2001In Adkins v. Uncle Bart's, Inc., 2000 UT 14,¶¶ 31-32 , 1 P.3d 528 , the supreme court did not allow the injured party to bring a third party claim against the vendor for wrongful death under the Dram-shop Act when the Dramshop Act explicitly allowed new causes of actions, but did not provide for an action for wrongful death. | 1 | 1 |
Gibbs M. Smith, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green2 sentences2001Smith, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 949 P.2d 337, 344 (Utah 1997), this court implied the same result we reach here, by holding, in a third-party claim, that attorney fees were recoverable for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 2001Smith, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 949 P.2d 337, 344 (Utah 1997), this court implied the same result we reach here, by holding, in a third-party claim, that attorney fees were recoverable for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Housleygreen1 sentence1989See also Hughes v. Housley, 599 P.2d 1250, 1253 (Utah 1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fire Ins Exchange v. Oltmanns
neutral
2 sentences2017For example, the fact that a different outcome is reached at a subsequent 22 Cite as: 2017 UT 81 DURHAM, J., concurring in part and in the result trial is not dispositive of whether the insurer breached its duty. 2017REV. (forthcoming), (cont.) 28 Cite as: 2017 UT 81 DURHAM, J., concurring in part and in the result ¶58 Where an insurer files a declaratory judgment action to determine its responsibilities in a third-party claim that comports with Utah Code section 78B-6-401(1) and Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), the insured is not entitled to attorney fees unless they are provided for in the insurance contract. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Shell Oil Co. v. Brinkerhoff-Signal Drilling Co.
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 1191 . 16 The reasoning in Shell Oil is highly instructive here. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rio Algom Corp. v. Jimco Ltd.
green
1 sentence2008Rio Algom, 618 P.2d at 506 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gardiner v. York
green
2 sentences2008The present case does not fall under any of the previously-recognized exceptions to the general rule against awarding attorney fees in tort cases. 1 *925 See Gardiner, 2006 UT App 496, ¶¶ 7-8 , 153 P.3d 791 (“‘The award of attorney fees as consequential damages, outside the context of statutory and contractual authorization, should be limited to ... two situations ...: insurance contracts and the third-party exception.’ ” (omissions in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Collier v. Heinz, 827 P.2d 982, 984 (Utah Ct.App.1992))). 2008The present case does not fall under any of the previously-recognized exceptions to the general rule against awarding attorney fees in tort cases. 1 *925 See Gardiner, 2006 UT App 496, ¶¶ 7-8 , 153 P.3d 791 (“‘The award of attorney fees as consequential damages, outside the context of statutory and contractual authorization, should be limited to ... two situations ...: insurance contracts and the third-party exception.’ ” (omissions in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Collier v. Heinz, 827 P.2d 982, 984 (Utah Ct.App.1992))). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pugh v. North American Warranty Services, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2006Warranty Servs., Inc., 2000 UT App 121 , ¶ 21 & n. 7, 1 P.3d 570 (awarding attorney fees in a breach of insurance contract case but noting that the insurance contract exception should not be expanded beyond "the realm of contracts fairly characterized as insurance contracts"). ¶ 8 The Collier court ultimately concluded that an award of attorney fees was inappropriate in that. case because neither the third-party litigation exception nor the insurance contract exception applied. 2006Warranty Servs., Inc., 2000 UT App 121 , ¶ 21 & n. 7, 1 P.3d 570 (awarding attorney fees in a breach of insurance contract case but noting that the insurance contract exception should not be expanded beyond "the realm of contracts fairly characterized as insurance contracts"). ¶ 8 The Collier court ultimately concluded that an award of attorney fees was inappropriate in that. case because neither the third-party litigation exception nor the insurance contract exception applied. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Canyon Country Store v. Bracey
green
1 sentence1992Plaintiff claims that the trial court’s award of attorney fees was correct under Canyon Country Store v. Bracey, 781 P.2d 414 (Utah 1989). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Company
green
2 sentences1976NOTES [1] Third-party defendant. [2] Plaintiff. [3] Defendant. [4] Title 35-1, U.C.A. 1953. [5] Employers Mutual v. Griffin Const., 280 S.W.2d 179 , 53 A.L.R.2d 967 (Ky. 1955); Larson, Law of Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 76-21 (1970). [6] Title 35-1, U.C.A. 1953. [7] Footnote 5, supra. [8] Cook v. Peter Kiewit, 15 Utah 2d 20 , 386 P.2d 616 (1963). [1] 78-27-38, U.C.A. 1953; (Ch. 209, Sec. 2, L.Ut. 1973). [2] 78-27-40, 41, U.C.A. 1953; (Ch. 209, Secs. 3 and 4, L.Ut. 1973). [3] 35-1-60, U.C.A. 1953. 1976NOTES [1] Third-party defendant. [2] Plaintiff. [3] Defendant. [4] Title 35-1, U.C.A. 1953. [5] Employers Mutual v. Griffin Const., 280 S.W.2d 179 , 53 A.L.R.2d 967 (Ky. 1955); Larson, Law of Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 76-21 (1970). [6] Title 35-1, U.C.A. 1953. [7] Footnote 5, supra. [8] Cook v. Peter Kiewit, 15 Utah 2d 20 , 386 P.2d 616 (1963). [1] 78-27-38, U.C.A. 1953; (Ch. 209, Sec. 2, L.Ut. 1973). [2] 78-27-40, 41, U.C.A. 1953; (Ch. 209, Secs. 3 and 4, L.Ut. 1973). [3] 35-1-60, U.C.A. 1953. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Griffin Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1976NOTES [1] Third-party defendant. [2] Plaintiff. [3] Defendant. [4] Title 35-1, U.C.A. 1953. [5] Employers Mutual v. Griffin Const., 280 S.W.2d 179 , 53 A.L.R.2d 967 (Ky. 1955); Larson, Law of Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 76-21 (1970). [6] Title 35-1, U.C.A. 1953. [7] Footnote 5, supra. [8] Cook v. Peter Kiewit, 15 Utah 2d 20 , 386 P.2d 616 (1963). [1] 78-27-38, U.C.A. 1953; (Ch. 209, Sec. 2, L.Ut. 1973). [2] 78-27-40, 41, U.C.A. 1953; (Ch. 209, Secs. 3 and 4, L.Ut. 1973). [3] 35-1-60, U.C.A. 1953. 1976NOTES [1] Third-party defendant. [2] Plaintiff. [3] Defendant. [4] Title 35-1, U.C.A. 1953. [5] Employers Mutual v. Griffin Const., 280 S.W.2d 179 , 53 A.L.R.2d 967 (Ky. 1955); Larson, Law of Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 76-21 (1970). [6] Title 35-1, U.C.A. 1953. [7] Footnote 5, supra. [8] Cook v. Peter Kiewit, 15 Utah 2d 20 , 386 P.2d 616 (1963). [1] 78-27-38, U.C.A. 1953; (Ch. 209, Sec. 2, L.Ut. 1973). [2] 78-27-40, 41, U.C.A. 1953; (Ch. 209, Secs. 3 and 4, L.Ut. 1973). [3] 35-1-60, U.C.A. 1953. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.