Can broad release language protect unnamed defendants in Utah? Thornock v. Jensen Explained

In personal injury settlements, the scope of release agreements can significantly impact future litigation rights. The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Thornock v. Jensen, examining whether broad boilerplate language in a release can protect defendants who are not specifically named.

Background and Facts

Following an automobile accident, plaintiff Bonnie Thornock executed a release with the insurance company in exchange for $469. The release named only defendant Dorothy Jensen’s husband, Lowell Jensen, who was the policy holder but was not involved in the accident. The release contained standard boilerplate language purporting to release “all individuals” who “could be liable for the above-referenced accident.” When Thornock later sued the actual driver, Jensen moved for summary judgment based on the release.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether Utah Code § 78-27-42 applied when a release names only a non-defendant party, and whether broad language could discharge an unnamed tortfeasor from liability. The statute provides that a release “does not discharge any other defendant unless the release so provides.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, applying the Utah Supreme Court’s holding in Child v. Newsom that releases must “contain language either naming the defendant or identifying the defendant with some degree of specificity.” The court rejected the argument that § 78-27-42 was inapplicable because the named party was not a “defendant,” finding such interpretation would create an absurd result contrary to the statute’s purpose of preventing automatic discharge of unnamed tortfeasors.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the critical importance of precise drafting in release agreements. Insurance adjusters and attorneys must specifically name all parties intended to be released rather than relying on broad language. The court’s analysis demonstrates that Utah courts will not permit boilerplate language to circumvent the statutory requirement for specific identification of released parties.