Can the Utah Liability Reform Act override respondeat superior in fault allocation? Bishop v. GenTec Inc. Explained

In Bishop v. GenTec Inc., the Utah Supreme Court addressed fundamental questions about how the Utah Liability Reform Act (LRA) interacts with common law doctrines and contract interpretation principles in wrongful death litigation.

Background and Facts

Douglas Bishop, a Valley Asphalt employee, died when asphalt silo doors manufactured by GenTec suddenly closed and crushed him during repair work. Bishop’s estate sued GenTec for products liability, while GenTec sought indemnification from Valley Asphalt based on contract provisions and filed a third-party complaint. The jury allocated 25% fault to Bishop, 45% to GenTec, and 30% to Valley Asphalt. Because Valley Asphalt was immune from suit under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the trial court reapportioned fault under the Liability Reform Act, increasing GenTec’s liability to 64.29%.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three critical issues: whether the LRA preempts the common law doctrine of respondeat superior in fault allocation, whether contract indemnification provisions covered products liability claims, and whether juror affidavits could be used to correct alleged calculation errors in the verdict.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that the LRA explicitly preempts respondeat superior in fault allocation contexts. Applying respondeat superior would undermine the legislature’s objectives in enacting reallocation provisions and would nullify sections 78-27-38(2) and 78-27-39(2)(a). The court also ruled that indemnification agreements must clearly and unequivocally express intent to cover products liability—general references to negligence are insufficient. Finally, the court distinguished between judicial errors and clerical errors under Rule 60(a), holding that juror affidavits are admissible to correct clerical errors that misrepresent the jury’s true intent.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s statutory framework takes precedence over common law principles in comparative fault cases involving immune employers. Practitioners drafting indemnification agreements must use explicit language addressing products liability and strict liability claims. The ruling also provides guidance for correcting jury verdicts when clerical errors can be demonstrated through juror testimony, expanding the tools available for post-trial relief.