Utah Supreme Court
Can homebuyers recover tort damages for construction defects under Utah's economic loss rule? Reighard v. Yates Explained
Summary
Homebuyers sued the builder who constructed and sold them a house after discovering mold, claiming negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The jury found for plaintiffs on negligence awarding $10,000 property damage and $2,500 noneconomic damages, but found for defendant on misrepresentation and that plaintiffs breached the contract.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Reighard v. Yates provides crucial guidance on the application of Utah’s economic loss rule in construction defect cases, clarifying when homebuyers may pursue tort remedies against builders despite existing contractual relationships.
Background and Facts
Builder Steven Yates constructed a Park City home where he lived for two years before selling it to the Reighard family through a standard Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC). The contract included seller disclosures requiring Yates to report known moisture conditions and mold. After discovering mold in 2006, the Reighards sued for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The jury awarded $10,000 for property damage and $2,500 for noneconomic damages on the negligence claim, but found for Yates on the other claims.
Key Legal Issues
The case centered on whether Utah’s economic loss rule barred the tort claims and whether builders owe independent duties to homebuyers beyond their contractual obligations. The court also addressed the admissibility of expert testimony on causation and the determination of the prevailing party for attorney fees.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court applied the economic loss rule to bar recovery of the $10,000 property damage award, holding that when a contract covers the subject matter of the dispute, economic damages to the contracted property must be pursued through contract remedies. However, the court distinguished bodily injury damages, ruling that the $2,500 noneconomic award for pain and suffering was recoverable because such damages fall outside the contract’s scope. The court also held that builders owe homebuyers an independent duty to avoid exposing them to unreasonable risks of physical injury.
Practice Implications
This decision requires careful case evaluation in construction defect matters. Practitioners must distinguish between property damage within the contract’s scope (typically barred by the economic loss rule) and personal injury or damage to other property (potentially recoverable in tort). The ruling also clarifies that builders remain subject to independent tort duties regarding personal safety, even when comprehensive contracts exist. Additionally, the court’s analysis of expert witness qualifications demonstrates that non-medical experts may testify on causation when properly qualified in relevant scientific fields.
Case Details
Case Name
Reighard v. Yates
Citation
2012 UT 45
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20100661
Date Decided
July 27, 2012
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
The economic loss rule prevents recovery of economic damages in tort when a contract covers the subject matter, but allows recovery for bodily injury damages that fall outside the contract’s scope.
Standard of Review
Questions of law including duty and economic loss rule application reviewed for correctness; expert witness admissibility and excusable neglect determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion; jury verdict reviewed with evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict
Practice Tip
When representing clients in construction defect cases, carefully distinguish between property damage within the contract’s scope (barred by economic loss rule) and personal injury or other property damage (potentially recoverable in tort).
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.