Utah Supreme Court
Does Utah's Liability Reform Act require fault apportionment in all cases? Biesele v. Mattena Explained
Summary
Two sets of sisters disputed an inheritance from their stepmother/mother, with the jury finding the defendants liable for various intentional torts and awarding substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants appealed challenging joint and several liability under the Liability Reform Act, the trial court’s failure to bifurcate the punitive damages trial, and the excessiveness of punitive damages.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Biesele v. Mattena clarifies a crucial aspect of Utah’s Liability Reform Act (LRA): fault apportionment is not automatically required in every case. This ruling provides important guidance for Utah practitioners on when joint and several liability remains available.
Background and Facts
This family dispute involved two sets of sisters fighting over an inheritance from their stepmother/mother, Royalene Thomas. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants committed various intentional torts related to trust funds and IRA distributions during Thomas’s illness and after her death. Following a five-day jury trial, the jury awarded substantial compensatory damages ($197,064.54 for IRA-related claims) and imposed joint and several liability. The defendants challenged this joint and several liability under the LRA.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Utah Code section 78B-5-818(4)(a) mandates fault apportionment in all cases or only when requested by a party. The statute provides that the fact finder “may, and when requested by a party shall, allocate the percentage or proportion of fault attributable to each defendant.” Defendants argued the LRA categorically abolished joint and several liability, while plaintiffs contended apportionment was required only upon request.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court adopted a nuanced interpretation of the LRA’s language. The court held that the apportionment requirement is mandatory only when requested by a party. The statute’s use of “may” and “shall” creates a permissive framework where apportionment becomes mandatory only “when requested by a party.” Without such a request, joint and several liability operates as the default. The court applied established principles of waiver and forfeiture, noting that parties can waive their statutory right to apportionment by failing to request it during trial.
Practice Implications
This decision has significant implications for Utah litigators. Parties seeking fault apportionment must make timely requests during trial, typically through special verdict forms or jury instructions. Post-trial motions cannot cure this failure since the fact finder must perform the apportionment. The ruling also confirms that attorney fees remain subject to joint and several liability under Rodriguez v. Kroger Co., as they arise from litigation rather than the underlying fault. Practitioners should carefully consider whether to request apportionment, as the default joint and several liability may be strategically advantageous for plaintiffs.
Case Details
Case Name
Biesele v. Mattena
Citation
2019 UT 30
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20180226
Date Decided
July 10, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The Liability Reform Act’s apportionment requirement is mandatory only when requested by a party, and absent such request, joint and several liability may operate as the default.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of statutory interpretation and application of the Liability Reform Act; abuse of discretion for trial court’s decision not to bifurcate trial and denial of expert witness fees
Practice Tip
When seeking fault apportionment under the Liability Reform Act, parties must make their request during trial through appropriate pleadings or jury instructions, not through post-trial motions.
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.