What must defendants prove to invoke Utah's borrowing statute? Accesslex Institute v. Philpot Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Accesslex Institute v. Philpot addressed the burden defendants must meet when invoking Utah’s borrowing statute to argue that a foreign state’s statute of limitations should apply to bar a plaintiff’s claims.

Background and Facts

Philpot received eight student loans from Accesslex Institute between 2004 and 2007 while attending law school in Michigan. After defaulting in 2009, he made his final payment on August 28, 2012. Accesslex filed suit in Utah on August 27, 2018—one day before Utah’s six-year statute of limitations expired. When that case was dismissed without prejudice, Accesslex refiled under Utah’s savings statute. Throughout the proceedings, Philpot argued that various states’ shorter limitation periods should apply under Utah Code § 78B-2-103, the borrowing statute.

Key Legal Issues

The case centered on Utah’s borrowing statute, which provides that “[a] cause of action which arises in another jurisdiction, and which is not actionable in the other jurisdiction by reason of the lapse of time, may not be pursued in this state.” The statute creates a two-part test: (1) whether the cause of action arose in another jurisdiction, and (2) whether it would be time-barred under that jurisdiction’s laws. As an affirmative defense, Philpot bore the burden of proving both elements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court examined conflicting evidence about where the loan contracts were to be performed. While Accesslex was headquartered in Pennsylvania, the contracts referenced Ohio law and Delaware payment addresses, and a third-party collection agency possibly operated from California. The court found this evidence insufficient to establish where the cause of action arose, noting that “unless the contract states otherwise, a cause of action for a breach of contract generally arises where the contract is to be performed.” Because Philpot failed to prove where performance was required, the court applied Utah’s presumptive six-year limitation period.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that defendants cannot successfully invoke the borrowing statute through speculation or general allegations. Practitioners must develop concrete factual evidence about contract performance locations through thorough discovery. The court’s analysis also demonstrates that multiple potential jurisdictions can complicate borrowing statute defenses, as defendants must definitively establish which specific jurisdiction’s law should apply.