Does Utah's High Voltage Overhead Lines Act bar summary judgment when notice requirements are disputed? Flowell v. Rhodes Explained

Background and Facts

In Flowell Electric Association v. Rhodes Pump, an employee was severely injured when a well-servicing boom contacted a high voltage power line. Brian Wade was working for Rhodes Pump when the boom on their truck came within three to four feet of Flowell’s power lines. Rhodes contacted Flowell, and utility workers installed protective covers and allegedly instructed Rhodes to call before lowering the boom. However, when Rhodes later raised the boom a second time to load forgotten equipment and then lowered it without notice, contact occurred, resulting in Wade’s severe electrical burns and leg amputations. After Flowell paid nearly $10 million in a subsequent tort judgment, it sought indemnification from Rhodes under Utah’s High Voltage Overhead Lines Act (HVOLA).

Key Legal Issues

The case presented several issues: whether HVOLA’s three-year statute of limitations barred the claim, whether the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision precluded HVOLA indemnification, whether HVOLA violated due process and equal protection rights, and most critically, whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on Rhodes’s alleged HVOLA violations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that material factual disputes remained. The court determined that HVOLA’s indemnification action was timely filed because the cause of action did not accrue until Flowell actually incurred liability through the jury verdict. The court also held that the WCA’s exclusive remedy provision did not bar HVOLA claims because such actions seek reimbursement under an independent statutory obligation, not compensation for employee injuries. However, the court found that disputed facts regarding the scope of Rhodes’s notice of intended activity and whether agreed-upon safety precautions were followed precluded summary judgment.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the fact-intensive nature of HVOLA violations. The court clarified that whether adequate notice was given depends on the relationship between the notice provided and the responsible party’s actual activities. Additionally, the opinion establishes that a utility’s negligence does not per se bar indemnification under HVOLA, as the statute contains no such exception. Practitioners should ensure thorough factual development regarding notice scope and safety protocols before seeking summary adjudication in HVOLA cases.