18400 Von Karman, Ste. 300, Irvine, CA 92612 | Tel: (949) 553-1010 | Fax: (949) 553-2050 | Email Us
Utah
CHOICE OF FORUM
| Choice of Law | Admission of Extrinsic Evidence | Insurer Allocation | Pre-Tender Fees | Statute of Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Most significant relationship test | Facts known, knowable, or available to the insurer | Only if apportionment is very clear | Recoverable | 3 years |
| American Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 927 P.2d 186, 190 (Utah 1996) | Deseret Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. USF&G Co., 714 P.2d 1143, 1147 (Utah 1986) (“The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify … and arises whenever the insurer ascertains facts which give rise to the potential of liability under the policy. Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal.2d 263, 275–77 (1966).”). The potential of liability extends to allegations that could be pled in an amended complaint. (Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263, 277, 419 P.2d 168 (1966) (“[D]espite Jones' pleading of intentional and wilful conduct, he could have amended his complaint to allege merely negligent conduct…[t]hus…we find, upon proper measurement of the third party action against the insurer's liability to indemnify, it should have defended because the loss could have fallen within that liability.”)) Summerhaze Co., L.C. v. FDIC, 2014 UT 28 at *P36 (2014) | Overthrust Constructors, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 676 F. Supp. 1086, 1091 (D. Utah 1987) | State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Green, 89 P.3d 97, 104 (Utah 2003) | (Utah Code Ann. § 31A-21-313 (1953)) |
| Pre-Judgment Interest | Late Notice | Public Policy Bar | Independent Counsel | Atty's Fees/Decl. Relief Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | Notice-prejudice | Not Addressed | May choose own counsel | Recoverable |
| (Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1 (1953)) | Quaker State Minit-Lube v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 868 F. Supp. 1278, 1334 (D. Utah 1994) | Chatterton v. Walker, 938 P.2d 255, 261 (Utah 1997) | Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co, 931 P.2d 127, 139 (Utah 1997) |
Affirming the trial court, the court conceded, contrary to that tribunal that specifically, "Basic Research asserts that the phrase ‘use of another's advertising idea in your advertisement' should not be limited to claims of misappropriation or wrongful taking of another's advertising idea, but should rather include any form of ‘misuse,' including deceitful advertising.