Can Utah's savings statute be used multiple times for the same claim? Hebertson v. Bank One, Utah Explained

In Hebertson v. Bank One, Utah, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Utah’s savings statute permits multiple refilings of the same claim after successive dismissals not on the merits. The court’s decision provides important guidance for practitioners dealing with procedural dismissals and the limits of the savings statute.

Background and Facts

Plaintiff Randi Hebertson slipped and fell on ice at Willowcreek Plaza in 1988, sustaining back injuries requiring multiple surgeries. She filed her first complaint against “Willowcreek Plaza” near the statute of limitations deadline, but the wrong entity was sued. After that dismissal, she filed a second complaint naming “Willowcreek Plaza” in the caption but Bank One and Dime Savings (the actual owners) in the body. This too was dismissed. Relying again on the savings statute, she filed a fourth complaint properly naming Bank One and Dime Savings as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling the savings statute permits only one refiling.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two critical questions: (1) whether Utah Code § 78-12-40 permits multiple successive refilings under the savings statute, and (2) whether new defendants can be added in refiled actions when they have sufficient identity of interest with originally named parties.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying statutory interpretation principles, the court examined the plain language of the savings statute. The statute refers to “any action commenced within due time,” and the court determined this includes actions filed within the savings statute’s one-year window. Crucially, the statute contains no “once per customer” limitation. The court rejected defendants’ argument that singular articles (“a new action”) preclude multiple refilings, noting the statute’s use of “any action” supports serial applications. Regarding new defendants, the court applied the same test used for relation back under Rule 15(c), requiring substantial similarity and sufficient identity of interest to avoid prejudice.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly expands tactical options for plaintiffs facing procedural dismissals. However, practitioners must ensure refiled actions are substantially the same as prior actions and that any new parties have sufficient identity of interest with originally named defendants. The court emphasized that abuse of this provision through harassment or unnecessary delay may result in Rule 11 sanctions. For defendants, the decision underscores the importance of seeking dismissals on the merits whenever possible to prevent serial refilings under the savings statute.