Does Utah's survival statute limit insurance contract claims? Berkemeir v. Hartford Ins. Explained

When an insured person dies before resolving an underinsured motorist claim, does Utah’s Survival Statute limit what their estate can recover? The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this question in Berkemeir v. Hartford Insurance, providing important guidance for insurance practitioners.

Background and Facts

Dorothy Berkemeir was injured when another driver inexplicably turned into oncoming traffic. After settling with the tortfeasor for his $50,000 policy limits, Berkemeir sought additional coverage under her underinsured motorist policy from Hartford Insurance. Hartford conceded that Berkemeir’s damages exceeded the tortfeasor’s coverage but disputed the amount owed. While the parties prepared for arbitration to determine the deficiency, Berkemeir died from causes unrelated to the accident. Hartford then denied the estate’s claim, arguing that Utah Code § 78-11-12 (the Survival Statute) limited recovery to out-of-pocket expenses only.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the Survival Statute applies to breach of contract claims against insurers or only to tort actions. Hartford argued that because the claim “arose out of personal injury,” the statute’s limitations applied regardless of the legal theory. The estate contended that the statute applies only to tort actions, not contractual disputes with insurers.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the estate. The court first determined that Hartford’s concessions regarding liability and that damages exceeded the tortfeasor’s policy limits constituted a settlement “able to be reduced to judgment,” thereby triggering Hartford’s contractual duty under the underinsured motorist policy. The court then examined the Survival Statute’s purpose, concluding it was enacted to abrogate the common law rule of tort action abatement upon a party’s death. Because the estate’s claim against Hartford sounded in contract rather than tort—arising from Hartford’s alleged breach of its insurance obligations rather than from Berkemeir’s physical injuries—the Survival Statute did not apply.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important protection for estates pursuing insurance claims. When an insured dies before resolving an underinsured motorist dispute, practitioners should frame the action as a breach of contract claim against the insurer rather than one arising from personal injury. The court’s analysis also demonstrates that insurers cannot escape their contractual duties simply because the insured dies before formal adjudication, particularly when the insurer has already made concessions regarding liability and coverage obligations.