Can trial courts ask juries to reconsider inconsistent verdicts before dismissal? KTM Health Care v. SG Nursing Home Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical procedural question in KTM Health Care v. SG Nursing Home, examining when trial courts may ask still-empaneled juries to reconsider potentially inconsistent verdicts.

Background and facts: KTM Health Care (Pharmacy) entered into an exclusive services contract with SG Nursing Home, but the nursing home attempted to cancel shortly after signing upon realizing it remained contractually bound to a different provider. Pharmacy sued for breach of contract and various fraud claims. At trial, the jury initially found both that the nursing home breached the contract (awarding $143,989 in damages plus attorney fees) and that the parties were mutually mistaken about the nursing home’s ability to terminate its existing contract. The trial court viewed these findings as inconsistent and resubmitted the case to the jury twice.

Key legal issues: The case presented three main issues: (1) whether trial courts may resubmit cases to still-empaneled juries for inconsistent verdicts; (2) whether the economic loss rule bars fraud claims that essentially restate contractual duties; and (3) whether prejudgment interest applies to speculative lost profits awards.

Court’s analysis and holding: The court of appeals established new precedent regarding special verdict forms. Unlike post-dismissal situations where courts must strain to reconcile inconsistent answers, trial courts have discretion to determine whether inconsistencies exist when juries remain empaneled and may seek clarification. However, the court found the trial court abused its discretion by allowing re-deliberation on unambiguous damage amounts. Regarding the fraud claims, while the election of remedies doctrine did not require dismissal before trial, the economic loss rule properly barred claims that merely alleged breach of contractual duties without independent tort duties.

Practice implications: This decision provides important guidance for managing complex jury trials. Practitioners should carefully draft special verdict forms with clear instructions about when juries should cease deliberations. When inconsistencies arise with empaneled juries, courts have meaningful discretion to seek clarification, but this discretion has limits—particularly regarding clear, unambiguous findings. For fraud claims in contractual disputes, practitioners must identify genuinely independent duties beyond contractual obligations to survive economic loss rule challenges.