Utah Court of Appeals

Can injured employees recover attorney fees from uninsured employers? Farman-Rava v. Blu Auto Transport Explained

2021 UT App 93
No. 20200250-CA
September 2, 2021
Reversed

Summary

Yasser Farman-Rava was injured on the job and sued his uninsured employer for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He prevailed on the negligence claim but lost on IIED. The district court denied his motion for attorney fees on the negligence claim, ruling that section 34A-2-207(4) did not apply to negligence claims.

Analysis

Background and Facts

Yasser Farman-Rava lost part of his finger in a workplace accident when his supervisor activated equipment he was handling. Because his employer, Blu Auto Transport LLC, had not purchased workers’ compensation insurance, Farman-Rava was able to sue in district court rather than being limited to the workers’ compensation administrative process. He brought claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The court found in his favor on negligence but ruled against him on the IIED claim, awarding damages for medical bills and pain and suffering.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 34A-2-207(4) entitled Farman-Rava to attorney fees for his successful negligence claim against his uninsured employer. The district court denied the fee request, concluding that this statute did not apply to negligence claims and requiring Farman-Rava to identify a different statutory basis for fees.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, applying a correctness standard of review to the legal question of attorney fee entitlement. The court explained that while the Workers’ Compensation Act typically provides the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries, section 34A-2-207 creates an exception when employers fail to secure workers’ compensation insurance. This provision explicitly authorizes “civil actions” for workplace injuries caused by employer negligence and mandates attorney fee awards under subsection (4). The court emphasized that negligence claims against uninsured employers are paradigmatic examples of civil actions permitted under this statute.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that attorney fees are mandatory under section 34A-2-207(4) for successful negligence claims against uninsured employers, regardless of whether other claims in the same lawsuit fail. Practitioners should ensure fee motions explicitly reference that the negligence claim constitutes a civil action permitted under this statute, and carefully document time spent on successful versus unsuccessful claims when seeking fee awards.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Farman-Rava v. Blu Auto Transport

Citation

2021 UT App 93

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20200250-CA

Date Decided

September 2, 2021

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

Under Utah Code section 34A-2-207(4), an employee who prevails on a negligence claim against an uninsured employer is entitled to attorney fees for a civil action permitted under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Standard of Review

Correctness for legal conclusions regarding entitlement to attorney fees

Practice Tip

When representing employees injured by uninsured employers, ensure attorney fee requests under Utah Code section 34A-2-207(4) specifically reference that the negligence claim is a civil action permitted under this statute.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Johnson

    November 24, 2023

    Jury instructions that omit one alternative ground for conviction narrow rather than broaden the charges, and failure to provide adequate trial transcripts defeats appellate review of sufficiency claims.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Jury Instructions
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Palmer

    September 5, 2025

    The State presented sufficient evidence to disprove a self-defense claim when testimony about the defendant’s fear and the victim’s threatening behavior could be discredited by contradictory witness testimony, physical evidence, and the defendant’s initial lies to police.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Sufficiency of Evidence
    Read More
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.