Can courts strike affidavits that mix personal knowledge with inadmissible interpretations? State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Forced Aire Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical evidentiary issue in State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Forced Aire, clarifying when trial courts may strike affidavit testimony that combines personal knowledge with inadmissible interpretations.

Background and Facts

State Farm sued Forced Aire after a 2002 house fire allegedly caused by negligent installation of a pellet stove. Forced Aire moved for summary judgment, arguing the statute of repose barred State Farm’s claims because the installation was completed more than twelve years before the fire. In opposing the motion, State Farm submitted an affidavit from Chad Edgington, the general contractor, stating the pellet stove work was not completed until early 1991. The district court struck portions of Edgington’s affidavit as “speculative and conclusory” because he interpreted markings on an inspection card made by another person years earlier.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether affidavit testimony should be struck when it contains both admissible statements based on personal knowledge and inadmissible interpretations of documents. The court also considered whether conflicting evidence about the completion date created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court erred in striking portions of Edgington’s affidavit. While acknowledging the affidavit contained inadmissible interpretations of the inspection card, the court found it also included statements based on Edgington’s independent recollection as the general contractor involved in “all aspects” of construction. The court emphasized that Edgington’s references to the inspection card appeared to support rather than provide the basis for his conclusions, noting language like “[t]he [i]nspection [c]ard confirms my memory.”

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for practitioners drafting affidavits in summary judgment proceedings. Courts should not strike entire portions of affidavits when they contain both admissible personal knowledge and inadmissible interpretations. The decision reinforces that conflicting sworn testimony creates factual disputes that preclude summary judgment, even when one party’s evidence appears stronger.