Does Utah recognize an independent tort of spoliation of evidence? Hills v. UPS Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in Hills v. UPS addressed a question of first impression: whether Utah should recognize an independent tort of spoliation of evidence. The case arose from tragic circumstances where UPS employee Mark Hills was electrocuted due to faulty electrical work by Skyline Electric Company.

Background and Facts

After Mark Hills’ death, UPS conducted an investigation that resulted in the alteration and destruction of critical evidence from the accident scene. Despite instructions from Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division to preserve the scene, evidence continued to disappear, resulting in a $71,700 fine against UPS. The Hills sued UPS and Liberty Mutual for spoliation of evidence while simultaneously pursuing a wrongful death claim against Skyline Electric.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two issues of first impression: whether Utah recognizes an independent tort of spoliation of evidence, and whether Utah recognizes a dual-capacity exception to the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provision. The court focused solely on the spoliation question.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court declined to adopt an independent tort of spoliation under these specific facts. Crucially, Skyline Electric had admitted liability in the underlying wrongful death action. Since spoliation is a derivative cause of action that depends on another independent claim, and since Skyline’s admission meant the Hills could recover fully in the wrongful death case, adopting a spoliation tort would be “wholly academic.” The court noted that any damages from the underlying action would subsume spoliation damages.

While Justice Nehring’s majority opinion extensively discussed the national landscape of spoliation law and expressed concern about third-party evidence destruction, the court explicitly left open whether it might adopt such a tort under different circumstances.

Practice Implications

Utah practitioners should note that the court did not foreclose future adoption of a spoliation tort entirely. The decision was limited to cases where the underlying liability is established. The court’s extensive discussion of other jurisdictions’ approaches suggests openness to the concept in appropriate circumstances. Practitioners facing evidence destruction should focus on traditional remedies including discovery sanctions, evidentiary inferences, and criminal penalties for evidence tampering under Utah Code § 76-8-510.5.