When can Utah courts award emotional distress damages for breach of contract? Ward v. McGarry Explained

Background and Facts

In Ward v. McGarry, the parties had a romantic relationship and one child together. Ward sent nude photos to McGarry during their relationship. After they separated, Ward requested via text that McGarry delete the photos, promising she would not use them in their custody dispute if he did so. McGarry agreed but failed to delete the photos. Years later, Ward learned that McGarry’s ex-wife and her son had seen the photos when McGarry gave his phone to the child to play with.

Key Legal Issues

Ward sued for breach of contract seeking emotional distress damages, along with promissory estoppel and tort claims. The central issues were whether emotional distress damages were recoverable under the contract, whether promissory estoppel was available when an express contract existed, and whether the economic loss rule barred the tort claims.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of all claims. For the breach of contract claim, the court applied the rule from Gregory & Swapp, PLLC v. Kranendonk that emotional distress damages require both foreseeability and explicit contemplation by the parties as shown by specific contract language. While the personal nature of the agreement made emotional distress foreseeable, the contract’s language—simply agreeing to delete photos in exchange for not using them in custody proceedings—did not explicitly contemplate emotional damages. The court distinguished contracts with language “specifically directed toward matters of mental concern and solicitude.”

For the promissory estoppel claim, the court held that equitable remedies are unavailable when an enforceable express contract governs the subject matter, regardless of whether specific damages are recoverable under that contract. The economic loss rule barred the tort claims because Ward failed to preserve her argument that McGarry owed an independent duty separate from the contractual duty to delete photos.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes Utah’s restrictive approach to emotional distress damages in contract cases. Practitioners drafting contracts involving personal subject matter should include explicit language addressing mental anguish or emotional distress if the parties intend such damages to be recoverable. The ruling also reinforces that equitable claims like promissory estoppel cannot circumvent limitations in express contracts, and that arguments regarding independent duties must be properly preserved to survive economic loss rule challenges.