election of remedies doctrine in Utah

2026“In its most basic terms, the election of remedies doctrine prevents double redress for a single wrong.” Id. (quotation simplified); accord KTM Health Care Inc. v. SG Nursing Home LLC, 2018 UT App 152, ¶ 64 , 436 P.3d 151 .

2026“In its most basic terms, the election of remedies doctrine prevents double redress for a single wrong.” Id. (quotation simplified); accord KTM Health Care Inc. v. SG Nursing Home LLC, 2018 UT App 152, ¶ 64 , 436 P.3d 151 .

2015The Election of Remedies Doctrine T68 In its most basic terms, the election of remedies doctrine "prevent[s] double redress for a single wrong." Angelos v. First Interstate Bank of Utah, 671 P.2d 772, 778 (Utah 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2002We agree. 1 12 In Palmer, the sellers argued that the holdings in the Andreasen line of cases were inconsistent with the election of remedies doctrine defined in Angelos v. First Interstate Bank of Utah, 671 P.2d 772, 778 (Utah 1983).

2024Under the inconsistent theories branch of the election of remedies doctrine, the plaintiff’s election becomes binding once “one remedy is pursued to a determinative conclusion.” Helf, 2015 UT 81, ¶ 77 (quotation simplified).

2021Inc., 2015 UT 81 , 361 P.3d 63 , our supreme court discussed the election of remedies doctrine in great detail.

2011See, eg., McKeon v. Crump, 2002 UT App 258, ¶¶ 8-10 , 53 P.3d 494 (noting that under the election of remedies clause contained in a standard real estate purchase contract, seller had a duty to release her interest in the earnest money deposit to the buyer before filing suit for damages); Palmer v. Hayes, 892 P.2d 1059, 1061-62 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (noting sellers had "an affirmative duty to release their interest in the deposit money to the [buyers] before they filed their suit for damages"). .

2002See Palmer, 892 P.2d at 1062 ("The [Andreasen] line of cases uniformly hold that before a seller may pursue a remedy other than liquidated damages, the seller must release any claim to the deposit money."). 16 Our conclusion is congruent with the Purchase Contract's default provision, stating that a "seller may elect either to retain the Earnest Money Deposit as liquidated damages, or to return it and sue Buyer." (Emphasis added.) The language unambiguously provides that seller must elect one of the two remedies.

2021So in refunding that fee, the court erroneously provided damages associated with rescission of the contract on top of its previous award of expectation damages for breach of contract. 8 Cf. Helf, 2015 UT 81, ¶ 69 (explaining that awarding a breach of contract remedy along with a quantum meruit remedy would violate the election of remedies doctrine); Mills v. Brown, 568 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Tenn. 1978) (“Rescission, of course, involves the avoidance, or setting aside, of a transaction.

2015See Bernstein, 256 F.2d at 706 ("Whatever may be said for the common law doctrine of election of remedies before the advent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we are certain that there is no room for its application under applicable rules of procedure....").

2015The judicial gardeners through whose carelessness it has crept in should be able to eliminate it, or at least to prevent its further growth."); Bernstein v. United States, 256 F.2d 697, 705 (10th Cir. *79 1958) ("[The election of remedies doctrine] has been consistently criticized as harsh and not a favorite of equity."); Waffer Int'l Corp. v. Khorsandi, 69 Cal.App.4th 1261 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 241, 251 (1999) ("Courts and commentators have long recognized the harshness of the election of remedies doctrine and have for some time looked upon it with disfavor." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 1

2015See United States v. Oregon Lumber Co., 260 U.S. 290, 301 , 43 S.Ct. 100 , 67 L.Ed. 261 (1922) (explaining that merely "underestimat{ing] the strength of [your] cause" is not enough to avoid the effect of the doctrine of election of remedies; stating that "if that were sufficient to warrant the bringing of a second and inconsistent action the result would be to confine the defense of election of remedies to cases where the first suit had been won by [the] plaintiff and to deny it in all cases where plaintiff had lost," and that election is "determined by the bringing and maintenance of the sui

2015See United States v. Oregon Lumber Co., 260 U.S. 290, 301 , 43 S.Ct. 100 , 67 L.Ed. 261 (1922) (explaining that merely "underestimat{ing] the strength of [your] cause" is not enough to avoid the effect of the doctrine of election of remedies; stating that "if that were sufficient to warrant the bringing of a second and inconsistent action the result would be to confine the defense of election of remedies to cases where the first suit had been won by [the] plaintiff and to deny it in all cases where plaintiff had lost," and that election is "determined by the bringing and maintenance of the sui

2015See, e.g., F.T.C. v. Leshin, 719 F.3d 1227, 1232 (11th Cir.2013) (The doctrine of election of remedies.... "limits a party with the choice of two remedies that are inconsistent with each other from obtaining both remedies or from obtaining first the one remedy and then, at a later date, an alternative one." (internal quotation marks omitted)); ConnectU LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.8d 82, 89 (1st Cir.2008) ("'The election of remedies doctrine is grounded on equitable principles."); see also AmJur2Dp Election of Remedies § 3.

2015See, e.g., F.T.C. v. Leshin, 719 F.3d 1227, 1232 (11th Cir.2013) (The doctrine of election of remedies.... "limits a party with the choice of two remedies that are inconsistent with each other from obtaining both remedies or from obtaining first the one remedy and then, at a later date, an alternative one." (internal quotation marks omitted)); ConnectU LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.8d 82, 89 (1st Cir.2008) ("'The election of remedies doctrine is grounded on equitable principles."); see also AmJur2Dp Election of Remedies § 3.

2015Thus employers would not be discouraged from engaging in intentional misconduct and would "escape any meaningful responsibility for its abuses." Jones, 472 N.E.2d at 1054 ; accord Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 288-34 (1991). 11 185 We agree with the courts that have rejected a strict application of the election of remedies doctrine to injured workers.

2015Thus employers would not be discouraged from engaging in intentional misconduct and would "escape any meaningful responsibility for its abuses." Jones, 472 N.E.2d at 1054 ; accord Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 288-34 (1991). 11 185 We agree with the courts that have rejected a strict application of the election of remedies doctrine to injured workers.

2015To the extent that the election requirement may interfere with an injured employee receiving compensation for his or her injuries, it should be avoided"); Millison v. ELI. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 , 501 A.2d 505, 518-19 (1985) ("Precluding plaintiffs from a common-law cause of action for intentional wrongs because they have already chosen to seek the relief available under workers' compensation would be an unduly harsh and technical application of the election-of-remedies doctrine....

2015To the extent that the election requirement may interfere with an injured employee receiving compensation for his or her injuries, it should be avoided"); Millison v. ELI. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 , 501 A.2d 505, 518-19 (1985) ("Precluding plaintiffs from a common-law cause of action for intentional wrongs because they have already chosen to seek the relief available under workers' compensation would be an unduly harsh and technical application of the election-of-remedies doctrine....

2015Mgmt. v. State, 799 A.2d 274 , 277 (R.I.2002) ("The doctrine of election of remedies is one that is grounded in equity and is designed to mitigate unfairness to both parties...." (emphasis added)); Barbe v. Villeneuve, 505 So.2d 1331, 1882 (Fla.1987) ("The election of remedies doctrine is an application of the doctrine of estoppel...."). +See also Am.

2015The judicial gardeners through whose carelessness it has crept in should be able to eliminate it, or at least to prevent its further growth."); Bernstein v. United States, 256 F.2d 697, 705 (10th Cir. *79 1958) ("[The election of remedies doctrine] has been consistently criticized as harsh and not a favorite of equity."); Waffer Int'l Corp. v. Khorsandi, 69 Cal.App.4th 1261 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 241, 251 (1999) ("Courts and commentators have long recognized the harshness of the election of remedies doctrine and have for some time looked upon it with disfavor." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 1

2015The judicial gardeners through whose carelessness it has crept in should be able to eliminate it, or at least to prevent its further growth."); Bernstein v. United States, 256 F.2d 697, 705 (10th Cir. *79 1958) ("[The election of remedies doctrine] has been consistently criticized as harsh and not a favorite of equity."); Waffer Int'l Corp. v. Khorsandi, 69 Cal.App.4th 1261 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 241, 251 (1999) ("Courts and commentators have long recognized the harshness of the election of remedies doctrine and have for some time looked upon it with disfavor." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 1

2015If a worker choses to apply for and receives workers' compensation benefits, the worker may be deemed to have made a binding election of this remedy because the worker pursued it to a "determinative conclusion." *81 Christensen, 577 N.W.2d at 224 (emphasis omitted).

2015Thus employers would not be discouraged from engaging in intentional misconduct and would "escape any meaningful responsibility for its abuses." Jones, 472 N.E.2d at 1054 ; accord Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 288-34 (1991). 11 185 We agree with the courts that have rejected a strict application of the election of remedies doctrine to injured workers.

2015Plaintiffs who lose that gamble [of selecting a tort suit over workers compensation] will be left totally uncompensated. ..."); Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 233 (1991) ("'The result thus obtained [allowing simultaneous workers compensation claims and tort suits] would be a more equitable one than forcing an employee who believes in good faith that he was injured by the intentional misconduct of his employer to forgo his compensation claim in order to maintain his common law claim.") (internal quotation marks omitted); Jones v. VIP Development Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 90 , 472 N

2015P. 8(e) (allowing pleading in the alternative); Parrish v. Tahtaras, 7 Utah 2d 87 , 318 P.2d 642, 645 (1957) (recognizing that modern pleading rules obviate the election of remedies bar on alternative pleading).

2015P. 8(e) (allowing pleading in the alternative); Parrish v. Tahtaras, 7 Utah 2d 87 , 318 P.2d 642, 645 (1957) (recognizing that modern pleading rules obviate the election of remedies bar on alternative pleading).

2011See, eg., McKeon v. Crump, 2002 UT App 258, ¶¶ 8-10 , 53 P.3d 494 (noting that under the election of remedies clause contained in a standard real estate purchase contract, seller had a duty to release her interest in the earnest money deposit to the buyer before filing suit for damages); Palmer v. Hayes, 892 P.2d 1059, 1061-62 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (noting sellers had "an affirmative duty to release their interest in the deposit money to the [buyers] before they filed their suit for damages"). .

2011See, eg., McKeon v. Crump, 2002 UT App 258, ¶¶ 8-10 , 53 P.3d 494 (noting that under the election of remedies clause contained in a standard real estate purchase contract, seller had a duty to release her interest in the earnest money deposit to the buyer before filing suit for damages); Palmer v. Hayes, 892 P.2d 1059, 1061-62 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (noting sellers had "an affirmative duty to release their interest in the deposit money to the [buyers] before they filed their suit for damages"). .

2002McMullin v. Shimmin, 10 Utah 2d 142 , 349 P.2d 720, 721 (1960) supports our conclusion.

2002McMullin v. Shimmin, 10 Utah 2d 142 , 349 P.2d 720, 721 (1960) supports our conclusion.

2002See Close, 354 P.2d at 857 ("[To) permit the seller to retain the [earnest] money and also to sue for specific performance would in effect render the option clause meaningless by not requiring him to exercise his option.").

2002See id. ("That [seller] has his choice is enough without giving him the advantage of both alternatives and thus providing two strings to his bow.").

1979Estoppel § 117 b, pp. 623-627. [3] King v. Clodfelter, 10 Wash. App. 514 , 518 P.2d 206, 210 (1974); Citizens Bank v. C & H Construction & Paving Co., Inc., 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796, 802 (1976); Mecham v. City of Glendale, 15 Ariz. App. 402 , 489 P.2d 65, 67 (1971); In Re Estate Of Cohen, 105 Ariz. 337 , 464 P.2d 620, 623-624 (1970). [4] 76 Idaho 87 , 277 P.2d 561, 565 (1954). [5] Of subordinate interest is the case of Buhler v. Marrujo, 86 N.M. 399 , 524 P.2d 1015, 1017 (1974), wherein it is stated: "First, the doctrine of election of remedies is not a doctrine of substantive law.

1979Estoppel § 117 b, pp. 623-627. [3] King v. Clodfelter, 10 Wash. App. 514 , 518 P.2d 206, 210 (1974); Citizens Bank v. C & H Construction & Paving Co., Inc., 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796, 802 (1976); Mecham v. City of Glendale, 15 Ariz. App. 402 , 489 P.2d 65, 67 (1971); In Re Estate Of Cohen, 105 Ariz. 337 , 464 P.2d 620, 623-624 (1970). [4] 76 Idaho 87 , 277 P.2d 561, 565 (1954). [5] Of subordinate interest is the case of Buhler v. Marrujo, 86 N.M. 399 , 524 P.2d 1015, 1017 (1974), wherein it is stated: "First, the doctrine of election of remedies is not a doctrine of substantive law.