Utah Code » Title 78B, Chapter 6 — Particular Proceedings; part 78B-6-7 — Utah Product Liability Act
Utah Code

Utah Code § 78B-6-706 (2026)

Statute of limitations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A civil action under this part shall be brought within two years from the time the individual who would be the claimant in the action discovered, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, both the harm and its cause.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch, 2017 UT 85 (Utah 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch, 2017 UT 85 (Utah 2017). · cites it 2× “20 Utah Code § 78B-6-706. 21 Id. § 78B-6-702.”
Utah Local Gov't Trust v. Wheeler Mach. Co., 2008 UT 84 (Utah 2008). · cites it 4× “" Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-706 (Supp.2008). The Product Liability Act does not define what constitutes "a civil action under [the Act].”
Adams v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 705 F. App'x 744 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “” Utah Code § 78B-6-706. We conclude that Adams knew, or should have known, by November 2007—when she was told she had to undergo a second operation to remove part of the mesh sling in order to remedy severe pain and bleeding—that she had been harmed by the sling.”
Sharrene Timothy v. Boston Sci. Corp., 665 F. App'x 295 (4th Cir. 2016). “Utah Code § 78B-6-706 (2008). Under Utah law, “all that is required to trigger the statute of limitations is sufficient information to put plaintiffs on notice to make further inquiry if they harbor doubts or questions.”
Falkenrath v. Candela Corp., 2016 UT App 76 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “§ 78B-6-706 (establishing a two-year statute of limitations for actions premised upon products liability).”
Terry Pantuso v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc., 485 S.W.3d 883 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “See Utah Code § 78B-6-706 (providing a two year statute of limitations for product liability claims from when the “claimant in the action discovered, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, both the harm and its cause”).”
Spencer v. Harley Davidson Inc (D. Utah 2021). · cites it 6× “53 Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-706. 54 Skinner v.”
Fernandez (D. Utah 2026). · cites it 4× “”9 “In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court must take as true all well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, view all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and liberally construe the pleadings.”
Skinner v. Ethicon, Inc. (D. Utah 2021). · cites it 3× “Section 78B-6-706 of the UPLA explicitly incorporates a discovery rule, which delays the accrual of a claim until the plaintiff “discovers (or should have discovered) all of the facts that form the basis for the cause of action.”
Gritton v. Fanuc Am. (D. Utah 2022). · cites it 2× “The Court notes that Sani-Matic’s reliance on the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense with the burden of proof resting on the party claiming such defense.”
Springsteen v. Bird Rides (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 2× “But she has since conceded that this claim is time-barred under Utah Code § 78B-6-706. See Dkt. No. 11 at 9.”
Ratner v. SkyWest Airlines (D. Utah 2024). · cites it 2× “40 And because that action was dismissed without prejudice, and because Ratners refiled their suit within one year of dismissal, they argue that the Utah Savings Statute renders the instant action—the Ratners’ second action in this court—timely.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.