15 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Farmers Insurance Exchangegreen2 sentences2017Exch., 2012 UT 52, ¶¶ 6, 13 , 286 P.3d 301 (including a deferential standard on the issue of whether the validity of the insurance claim was fairly debatable); IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2003 UT 5, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 320 (including a deferential standard on the issue of waiver); Withers v. Jepsen, 2011 UT App 8, ¶¶ 2, 5-6 , 246 P.3d 1215 (examining whether the district court exceeded its discretion by declining to make equitable adjustments in partition and sale matters). ¶ 29 The latter approach may be appropriate when summary judgment turns on a trial court’s determinations r 2017Exch., 2012 UT 52, ¶¶ 6, 13 , 286 P.3d 301 (including a deferential standard on the issue of whether the validity of the insurance claim was fairly debatable); IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2003 UT 5, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 320 (including a deferential standard on the issue of waiver); Withers v. Jepsen, 2011 UT App 8, ¶¶ 2, 5-6 , 246 P.3d 1215 (examining whether the district court exceeded its discretion by declining to make equitable adjustments in partition and sale matters). ¶ 29 The latter approach may be appropriate when summary judgment turns on a trial court’s determinations r | 1 | 1 |
Withers v. Jepsengreen2 sentences2017Exch., 2012 UT 52, ¶¶ 6, 13 , 286 P.3d 301 (including a deferential standard on the issue of whether the validity of the insurance claim was fairly debatable); IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2003 UT 5, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 320 (including a deferential standard on the issue of waiver); Withers v. Jepsen, 2011 UT App 8, ¶¶ 2, 5-6 , 246 P.3d 1215 (examining whether the district court exceeded its discretion by declining to make equitable adjustments in partition and sale matters). ¶ 29 The latter approach may be appropriate when summary judgment turns on a trial court’s determinations r 2017Exch., 2012 UT 52, ¶¶ 6, 13 , 286 P.3d 301 (including a deferential standard on the issue of whether the validity of the insurance claim was fairly debatable); IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2003 UT 5, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 320 (including a deferential standard on the issue of waiver); Withers v. Jepsen, 2011 UT App 8, ¶¶ 2, 5-6 , 246 P.3d 1215 (examining whether the district court exceeded its discretion by declining to make equitable adjustments in partition and sale matters). ¶ 29 The latter approach may be appropriate when summary judgment turns on a trial court’s determinations r | 1 | 1 |
Critchlow v. First Unum Life Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2007Co., 377 F.Supp.2d 337, 347-49 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (awarding prejudgment interest to a judgment for the denial of an insurance claim at the average federal postjudgment interest rate in effect over the period from the initial denial of the plaintiff's claim through the date of entry of judgment); Prod. 2007Critchlow, 377 F.Supp.2d at 348 (determining the prejudgment interest rate by averaging the weekly § 1961 interest rate from the initial insurance claim denial to the date of judgment). 61 . | 1 | 1 |
Callioux v. Progressive Insurance Co.green1 sentence2002Co., 745 P.2d 838, 842 (Utah Ct.App.1987); see also 14 Lee R. | 1 | 1 |
Utah State Bar v. Summerhayes & Hayden, Public Adjustersgreen2 sentences1998See Utah State Bar v. Summerhayes & Hayden, 905 P.2d 867 (Utah 1995) (holding practice of third-party adjusting of insurance claims by public adjusters is the "unauthorized practice of law"). 1998See Utah State Bar v. Summerhayes & Hayden, 905 P.2d 867 (Utah 1995) (holding practice of third-party adjusting of insurance claims by public adjusters is the "unauthorized practice of law”). | 1 | 1 |
Spaulding v. Dentongreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342, 345-46 (D.Del.1975) (considering facts of each case to determine purpose of documents); Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771, 774 (M.D.Pa.1985) (same); Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So.2d 615, 619 (Miss.1992) (“[Cjourts should consider ‘the nature of the documents, the nature of the litigation [and investigation], the relationship between the parties, and any other fact peculiar to the case.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Pete Rinaldi’s Fast Foods v. Great American Ins., 123 F.R.D. 198, 202 (M.D.N.C.1988))). 1996See, e.g., Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342, 345-46 (D.Del.1975) (considering facts of each case to determine purpose of documents); Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771, 774 (M.D.Pa.1985) (same); Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So.2d 615, 619 (Miss.1992) ("[C]ourts should consider `the nature of the documents, the nature of the litigation [and investigation], the relationship between the parties, and any other fact peculiar to the case.'" (alteration in original) (quoting Pete Rinaldi's Fast Foods v. Great American Ins., 123 F.R.D. 198, 202 (M.D.N.C.1988))). | 1 | 1 |
Harriman v. Maddocksgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Ashmead v. Harris, 336 N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa 1983); Harriman v. Maddocks, 518 A.2d 1027, 1033-34 (Me.1986). 1996See, e.g., Ashmead v. Harris, 336 N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa 1983); Harriman v. Maddocks, 518 A.2d 1027, 1033-34 (Me.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Haynes v. Andersongreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342, 345-46 (D.Del.1975) (considering facts of each case to determine purpose of documents); Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771, 774 (M.D.Pa.1985) (same); Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So.2d 615, 619 (Miss.1992) (“[Cjourts should consider ‘the nature of the documents, the nature of the litigation [and investigation], the relationship between the parties, and any other fact peculiar to the case.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Pete Rinaldi’s Fast Foods v. Great American Ins., 123 F.R.D. 198, 202 (M.D.N.C.1988))). 1996See, e.g., Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342, 345-46 (D.Del.1975) (considering facts of each case to determine purpose of documents); Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771, 774 (M.D.Pa.1985) (same); Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So.2d 615, 619 (Miss.1992) ("[C]ourts should consider `the nature of the documents, the nature of the litigation [and investigation], the relationship between the parties, and any other fact peculiar to the case.'" (alteration in original) (quoting Pete Rinaldi's Fast Foods v. Great American Ins., 123 F.R.D. 198, 202 (M.D.N.C.1988))). | 1 | 1 |
Ashmead v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Ashmead v. Harris, 336 N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa 1983); Harriman v. Maddocks, 518 A.2d 1027, 1033-34 (Me.1986). 1996See, e.g., Ashmead v. Harris, 336 N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa 1983); Harriman v. Maddocks, 518 A.2d 1027, 1033-34 (Me.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc.green2 sentences1996See, e.g., Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342, 345-46 (D.Del.1975) (considering facts of each case to determine purpose of documents); Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771, 774 (M.D.Pa.1985) (same); Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So.2d 615, 619 (Miss.1992) (“[Cjourts should consider ‘the nature of the documents, the nature of the litigation [and investigation], the relationship between the parties, and any other fact peculiar to the case.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Pete Rinaldi’s Fast Foods v. Great American Ins., 123 F.R.D. 198, 202 (M.D.N.C.1988))). 1996See, e.g., Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342, 345-46 (D.Del.1975) (considering facts of each case to determine purpose of documents); Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771, 774 (M.D.Pa.1985) (same); Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So.2d 615, 619 (Miss.1992) ("[C]ourts should consider `the nature of the documents, the nature of the litigation [and investigation], the relationship between the parties, and any other fact peculiar to the case.'" (alteration in original) (quoting Pete Rinaldi's Fast Foods v. Great American Ins., 123 F.R.D. 198, 202 (M.D.N.C.1988))). | 1 | 1 |
Pete Rinaldi's Fast Foods, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Companiesgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342, 345-46 (D.Del.1975) (considering facts of each case to determine purpose of documents); Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771, 774 (M.D.Pa.1985) (same); Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So.2d 615, 619 (Miss.1992) (“[Cjourts should consider ‘the nature of the documents, the nature of the litigation [and investigation], the relationship between the parties, and any other fact peculiar to the case.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Pete Rinaldi’s Fast Foods v. Great American Ins., 123 F.R.D. 198, 202 (M.D.N.C.1988))). 1996See, e.g., Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342, 345-46 (D.Del.1975) (considering facts of each case to determine purpose of documents); Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771, 774 (M.D.Pa.1985) (same); Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So.2d 615, 619 (Miss.1992) ("[C]ourts should consider `the nature of the documents, the nature of the litigation [and investigation], the relationship between the parties, and any other fact peculiar to the case.'" (alteration in original) (quoting Pete Rinaldi's Fast Foods v. Great American Ins., 123 F.R.D. 198, 202 (M.D.N.C.1988))). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beck v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences2026However, damages are not “available for the mere disappointment, frustration, or anxiety normally experienced in the process of filing an insurance claim and negotiating a settlement with an insurer.” Beck, 701 P.2d at 802 n.6. 2018But the Beck court went on to say that "[t]he foreseeability of any such damages will always hinge upon the nature and language of the contract and the reasonable expectations of the parties" and that "damages will not be available for the mere disappointment, frustration, or anxiety normally experienced in the process of filing an insurance claim and negotiating a settlement with the insurer." Id. at 802 & n.6. | 2 | 2018–2026 |
Meade Recovery Services v. Davidson
green
1 sentence2025But she also agreed that she would pay for the services she received if the insurers failed to pay—even though those services were presumably covered. ¶22 Davidson further argues that the district court was wrong in finding that there was “no evidence before the Court that the LAA services were covered services by [Davidson’s] insurers.” She claims that this conclusion inappropriately places “the burden of proving insurance coverage on [Davidson].” She maintains that if Meade cannot prove that the insurance claim was denied for lack of coverage, then she did not have an obligation to pay for t | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Capozzoli v. Madden
green
1 sentence2024Capozzoli paid the Restoration Company $1,511.83 for the mitigation work it had already done to dry out 20230188-CA 5 2024 UT App 176 Capozzoli v. Madden the water. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Prisbrey
green
1 sentence2020Thus, to the extent there was probable cause to bind Prisbrey over for arson, there was also probable cause to bind him over for knowingly making a false or fraudulent insurance claim. 20190569-CA 18 2020 UT App 172 State v. Prisbrey garage and the great room. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bahr v. Imus
green
2 sentences2017Exch., 2012 UT 52, ¶¶ 6, 13 , 286 P.3d 301 (including a deferential standard on the issue of whether the validity of the insurance claim was fairly debatable); IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2003 UT 5, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 320 (including a deferential standard on the issue of waiver); Withers v. Jepsen, 2011 UT App 8, ¶¶ 2, 5-6 , 246 P.3d 1215 (examining whether the district court exceeded its discretion by declining to make equitable adjustments in partition and sale matters). ¶ 29 The latter approach may be appropriate when summary judgment turns on a trial court’s determinations r 2017Exch., 2012 UT 52, ¶¶ 6, 13 , 286 P.3d 301 (including a deferential standard on the issue of whether the validity of the insurance claim was fairly debatable); IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2003 UT 5, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 320 (including a deferential standard on the issue of waiver); Withers v. Jepsen, 2011 UT App 8, ¶¶ 2, 5-6 , 246 P.3d 1215 (examining whether the district court exceeded its discretion by declining to make equitable adjustments in partition and sale matters). ¶ 29 The latter approach may be appropriate when summary judgment turns on a trial court’s determinations r | 1 | 2017–2017 |
IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K Management, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Exch., 2012 UT 52, ¶¶ 6, 13 , 286 P.3d 301 (including a deferential standard on the issue of whether the validity of the insurance claim was fairly debatable); IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2003 UT 5, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 320 (including a deferential standard on the issue of waiver); Withers v. Jepsen, 2011 UT App 8, ¶¶ 2, 5-6 , 246 P.3d 1215 (examining whether the district court exceeded its discretion by declining to make equitable adjustments in partition and sale matters). ¶ 29 The latter approach may be appropriate when summary judgment turns on a trial court’s determinations r 2017Exch., 2012 UT 52, ¶¶ 6, 13 , 286 P.3d 301 (including a deferential standard on the issue of whether the validity of the insurance claim was fairly debatable); IHC Health Services, Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2003 UT 5, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 320 (including a deferential standard on the issue of waiver); Withers v. Jepsen, 2011 UT App 8, ¶¶ 2, 5-6 , 246 P.3d 1215 (examining whether the district court exceeded its discretion by declining to make equitable adjustments in partition and sale matters). ¶ 29 The latter approach may be appropriate when summary judgment turns on a trial court’s determinations r | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Estate of Berkemeir Ex Rel. Nielsen v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest
green
2 sentences2004Berkemeir, 2003 UT App 78 at ¶ 12 , 67 P.3d 1012 . 2004Berkemeir, 2003 UT App 78 at ¶ 12 , 67 P.3d 1012 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Billings v. Union Bankers Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2002Nevertheless, trial courts have "some discretion" in concluding that an insurance claim is fairly debatable "because of the complexity and variety of the facts upon which the fairly debatable determination depends," and we will therefore "grant the trial court's conclusion some deference." Id. 134 We concur with the court of appeals that "[ilf the evidence presented creates a factual issue as to the claim's validity, there exists a debatable reason for denial, . eliminating the bad faith claim." Callioux v. Progressive Ins. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. McMichael
green
1 sentence1996Nonetheless, the McMichael court stated, “the causation test does not require that the insured vehicle itself be the source of the injury, only that the use be integrally related to the claimant’s activities and the injury at the time of the accident.” Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Thomas Organ Co. v. Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba
green
2 sentences1994Fireman’s Fund argued that after an insurance claim has arisen, “litigation may be deemed a contingency and any document prepared after such a claim has arisen is prepared in anticipation of litigation ... irrespective of whether an attorney in the role of counsellor has been consulted-” Id. at 373 . 1994Fireman's Fund argued that after an insurance claim has arisen, "litigation may be deemed a contingency and any document prepared after such a claim has arisen is prepared in anticipation of litigation... irrespective of whether an attorney in the role of counsellor has been consulted...." Id. at 373 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Canyon Country Store v. Bracey
green
1 sentence1989Canyon Country Store, 781 P.2d at 422 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Gagon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1988ZIMMERMAN, Justice (concurring in denial of certiorari): Defendant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (“State Farm”) seeks review of the Court of Appeals’ opinion, 746 P.2d 1194 (Utah App.1987), which reversed the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of State Farm on plaintiff William Ray Gagon’s claim that State Farm had acted in bad faith in refusing to pay an insurance claim. 1988ZIMMERMAN, Justice (concurring in denial of certiorari): Defendant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company ("State Farm") seeks review of the Court of Appeals' opinion, 746 P.2d 1194 (Utah App. 1987), which reversed the trial court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of State Farm on plaintiff William Ray Gagon's claim that State Farm had acted in bad faith in refusing to pay an insurance claim. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.