Utah Code
Utah Code § 78B-8-203 (2026)
Drug exception
✓ laws through the 2026 General Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Punitive damages may not be awarded if a drug causing the claimant's harm:
received premarket approval or licensure by the Federal Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 301 et seq. or the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.;
is generally recognized as safe and effective under conditions established by the Federal Food and Drug Administration and applicable regulations, including packaging and labeling regulations.
This limitation on liability for punitive damages does not apply if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the drug manufacturer knowingly withheld or misrepresented information required to be submitted to the Federal Food and Drug Administration under its regulations, which information was material and relevant to the claimant's harm.
Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 3, 2008 General Session
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2023 · leading case: Christiansen v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc., 127 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2015).
Christiansen v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc., 127 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2015). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-203(a). Utah did not extend this exception to medical device manufacturers.”
Davis v. Actavis, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-03775 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2023). “§ 2A:58C-5(c); Utah Code § 78B-8-203. In response, the plaintiffs also forego a choice-of-law analysis.”
Johns v. CR Bard, No. 2:18-cv-01509 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2020). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-203. This exception does not apply if it shown the drug manufacturer withheld or misrepresented information required to be submitted to the FDA.”
In Re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 1:14-cv-01748 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2023). “§ 2A:58C-5(c); Utah Code § 78B-8-203. In response, the plaintiffs also forego a choice-of-law analysis.”
Utah Code § 78B-8-203(a): 1 case
Christiansen v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc., 127 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2015). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-203(a). Utah did not extend this exception to medical device manufacturers.”
Utah Code § 78B-8-203(b): 1 case
Christiansen v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc., 127 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2015). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-203(a). Utah did not extend this exception to medical device manufacturers.”
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.