Utah Court of Appeals
Do settlement payments qualify as awards under Utah's Dramshop Act? RMB Inc. v. Celotto Explained
Summary
Two bars settled claims brought by an injured driver under the Dramshop Act and sought contribution from the intoxicated driver who caused the accident. The district court granted summary judgment against the bars, ruling that their settlement payments did not constitute an ‘award’ as required for contribution claims under Utah Code section 32B-15-302(1)(a).
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In RMB Inc. v. Celotto, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified an important limitation on contribution claims under Utah’s Alcoholic Product Liability Act (Dramshop Act). The court held that voluntary settlement payments do not constitute “awards” for purposes of seeking contribution from intoxicated drivers.
Background and Facts
After Corbin Celotto caused an automobile accident while intoxicated, the injured driver sued both Celotto and five bars that allegedly overserved him alcohol. Two bars—RMB Inc. and Shaman Inc.—asserted contribution crossclaims against Celotto under Utah Code section 32B-15-302(1)(a). The injured driver ultimately settled his claims against Celotto and the bars for a combined one million dollars, with all claims dismissed except the bars’ contribution claims against Celotto.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether settlement payments constitute an “award” under the Dramshop Act’s contribution provision, which allows “a person, . . . against whom an award is made under [the Dramshop Act], [to] bring a separate cause of action for contribution against any person causing the injury and damage.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the court examined the ordinary meaning of “award,” finding it means “something that is conferred or bestowed,” typically by a jury or arbitrator assessing damages. The court noted that the grammatical structure of the provision—”against whom an award is made”—clearly indicates that some authority makes the award through an adversarial process. Voluntary settlements, reached through bargained-for agreements, do not qualify as awards under this definition.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly limits dramshop defendants’ ability to recover contribution from intoxicated drivers when claims are resolved through settlement rather than trial or arbitration. Practitioners representing bars and other alcohol vendors should advise clients that settling dramshop claims precludes subsequent contribution actions, potentially affecting settlement strategy decisions.
Case Details
Case Name
RMB Inc. v. Celotto
Citation
2024 UT App 188
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20230393-CA
Date Decided
December 19, 2024
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The term ‘award’ in Utah’s Alcoholic Product Liability Act does not include voluntary settlement payments, precluding bars from seeking contribution against an intoxicated driver based on settlement amounts.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment and statutory interpretation questions
Practice Tip
When advising dramshop defendants, ensure they understand that settlement payments will not support subsequent contribution claims against intoxicated drivers under Utah’s Alcoholic Product Liability Act.
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.