Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) requires culpability for punitive damages; an honest belief in an equitable claim to converted property can support denying them.

Firkins v. Ruegner · filed 2009-06-25(1)(a)

Finally, respecting punitive damages, we uphold the trial court's decision to deny punitive damages based on its factual finding that Firkins did not act with the requisite culpability in converting the vehicles given his honest belief that he had an equitable claim to the vehicles. See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201(1)(a) (2008).

Section 78B-8-201 permits punitive damages only when compensatory or general damages are awarded, unless another statute provides otherwise.

Fowler v. Teynor · filed 2014-03-20

The Second Amended Complaint also sought punitive damages, but punitive damages may not be awarded unless a plaintiff first establishes non-punitive damages against a defendant.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) requires clear and convincing evidence that a defendant actually knew of the danger for punitive damages based on reckless indifference; evidence that the defendant should have known is insufficient.

Blackburn v. USA · filed 2021-06-23(1)(a)

The record before the court cannot support a finding by clear and convincing evidence of the required actual knowledge, nor does it fit the purpose of punitive damages.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) does not permit punitive damages when the alleged conduct amounts at most to negligence rather than knowing and reckless indifference to others’ rights.

Nguyen v. IHC HEALTH SERVICES, INC. · filed 2010-04-22(1)(a)

We agree with the district court and PCMC that even if all those facts were established, they would not, as a matter of law, justify a punitive damages award because they would not establish that PCMC's actions amounted to "conduct that manifest[ed] a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others." Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201(1)(a) (2008).

When punitive damages are calculated from compensatory damages, the court must find that the conduct underlying those damages satisfies the section’s culpability standard.

Wachocki v. Luna · filed 2014-06-19(1)(a)

We also vacate the punitive damages award because the district court based that award on the compensatory damages without finding that the compensatory damages were based upon conduct that satisfies Utah Code section 78B-8-201(1)(a) and because the district court failed to properly assess the individual wealth of each defendant.

Section 78B-8-201 allows punitive damages when compensatory or general damages are awarded and clear and convincing evidence establishes willful, malicious, intentionally fraudulent, or knowingly reckless conduct. An adequate product warning does not bar punitive damages for misrepresentation or concealment.

Christiansen v. Wright Medical Technology Inc. · filed 2015-08-31

Defendants’ conduct, if proven at trial, could lead a jury to conclude that they had acted willfully or recklessly in misrepresenting or concealing material information regarding the risks of prescribing the Conserve Hip Implant System in patients, such as Plaintiff. Defendants’ assertion that the warning it provided with the product was adequate, even if true, does not bar Plaintiff from seeking punitive damages for her misrepresentation or concealment claims.

Section 78B-8-201 supplies the findings required for punitive damages, including in fraud cases, and leaves the award to the jury’s discretion.

Braun v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. · filed 2015-10-21

The statute provides what a jury must find to award punitive damages, and those findings were made. Medtronic has not persuaded the court to look beyond the plain language of the statute and create an exception in the case of fraud.

Section 78B-8-201 permits punitive damages for negligent misrepresentation when the defendant’s conduct manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward the rights of others.

Christiansen v. Wright Medical Technology Inc. · filed 2016-04-05

Unlike in Fullmer, Crivello, and Bhan-dari, the question in this case is whether, under Utah law, a negligent misrepresentation claim can support a punitive damages award where, as here, the jury also finds that the defendant’s conduct manifested a knowing and reckless indifference towards the rights of others. It is clear that it can.

Section 78B-8-201 permits punitive damages only when compensatory or general damages are awarded and clear and convincing evidence establishes willful, fraudulent, or knowingly reckless conduct.

Johns v. CR Bard · filed 2020-09-01

Under Utah law, punitive damages may only be awarded if compensatory of general damages are awarded and if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that Bard’s acts or omissions “are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201; see also Daniels v. Gamma West Brachytherapy, LLC, 221 P.3d 256, 269 (Utah 2009) (“As stated in the plain language of the statute, two types of conduct justify an award of punitive damages: (1) ‘willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct’ or (2) ‘a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.’”).

Section 78B-8-201 permits punitive damages when compensatory or general damages are awarded and clear and convincing evidence establishes willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or knowing and reckless disregard of others’ rights.

Christensen v. Johnson Smith & Associates · filed 2021-01-07

Utah law permits punitive damages for fraudulent conduct “only if compensatory or general damages are awarded and it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omission of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201. ... Based upon the allegations of the Complaint and the testimony during the hearing on damages, the Court finds Defendants did act willfully, knowingly, and fraudulently in an effort to deceive plaintiff. ... As such, the Court concludes punitive damages are warranted in this case. In view of the evidence presented, the Court will award punitive damages of $50,345.70, which is three times plaintiff's actual damages described above.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) allows punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows willful and malicious conduct or knowing and reckless indifference to others’ rights; the issue goes to a jury when the evidence could support that finding.

Rosenthal v. Morris · filed 2021-06-11(1)(a)

Under Utah law, punitive damages may be awarded only if a plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omissions of the defendant “are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.”... A reasonable jury could conclude, on the evidence presented, that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. Accordingly, the issue of punitive damages must be submitted to the jury.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) permits punitive damages when a plaintiff receives compensatory or general damages and proves the specified misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.

Gorji v. C.R. Bard Inc · filed 2022-02-28(1)(a)

Punitive damages are also available under Utah law (where BAS is incorporated) if a plaintiff is awarded compensatory or general damages and establishes “by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201(1)(a) (West 2021).

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) generally permits punitive damages only when compensatory or general damages are awarded and clear and convincing evidence establishes the specified wrongful conduct.

Diversified Striping v. Kraus · filed 2022-07-21(1)(a)

In fact, the Utah Code provides that punitive damages are generally available “only if compensatory or general damages are awarded and it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201(1)(a) (LexisNexis 2018); accord Jones v. Mackey Price Thompson & Ostler, 2020 UT 25, ¶ 57, 469 P.3d 879. ... Given this lack of clarity, the court should revisit its punitive damages decision on remand and demonstrate that it has applied the correct standard.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) sets the standard for punitive damages, and courts may not add requirements drawn from earlier common law decisions.

Nassi v. Hatsis · filed 2023-01-20(1)(a)

We see no basis in the current Utah statute for the additional requirements set forth in Behrens and Nguyen and which were apparently imposed by the district court here. Again, under our current statute, a plaintiff must establish “by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.” Utah Code § 78B-8-201(1)(a).

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) permits punitive damages for willful and malicious conduct, intentional fraud, or knowing and reckless indifference to others’ rights; allegations of knowing indifference can satisfy that requirement at the pleading stage.

Baldwin v. Triple S Trucking Co · filed 2024-08-01(1)(a)

Punitive damages are available under Utah law when “the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201(1)(a). ... Here, Plaintiffs satisfied this requirement because they allege Defendants knew of and were indifferent to the dangers presented by their decision to manage and operate a federal motor carrier without ensuring that the vehicles that they use in their operations are safe to operate and comply with federal and state safety laws and that their drivers are instructed on and comply with federal safety laws.

Section 78B-8-201 permits punitive damages for intentional fraud when compensatory damages are awarded; the amount depends on the misconduct and the actual damages.

Wyssling v. Swensen · filed 2025-04-10(1)(a)

Accordingly, in view of the circumstances surrounding this fraud and the size of the court’s actual damages award, the court finds it appropriate to award $1 million in punitive damages, a ratio of 0.5:1, under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) permits punitive damages for gross negligence when the defendant actually knew of the danger and acted with reckless indifference to others’ rights.

Daniels v. Gamma West Brachytherapy, LLC · filed 2009-10-02(1)(a)

To qualify for punitive damages under the statute, an action need not be intentional but may alternatively be knowing and reckless. Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201(1)(a) (2008). Therefore, in certain instances, a claim for gross negligence may satisfy the statute's requirement.

Section 78B-8-201(3)(a)'s split-recovery rule applies only to claims that accrued after the current version was adopted.

Braun v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. · filed 2014-07-03(3)(a)

As a result, in the absence of any express statutory language or legislative history to the contrary, the court must conclude that the Legislature intended for the amended split-recovery provision to apply only to those claims that accrued after the adoption of the current version of the statute.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) requires knowledge of the risk of harm for punitive damages based on knowing and reckless disregard; the recklessness needed for fraudulent inducement alone does not satisfy that standard.

Braun v. Danek · filed 2017-12-14(1)(a)

Because these are distinct forms of recklessness, an award of punitive damages is not automatic upon the establishment of the recklessness required—as a minimum threshold—for liability for fraudulent inducement; accordingly, the basis for the application of the ostensible aggravating circumstances standard is not present.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) permits punitive damages when compensatory damages are awarded and intentionally fraudulent conduct is proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Bodell Construction v. First Interstate Financial · filed 2018-10-18(1)(a)

Under Utah law, a jury may award punitive damages if it awards compensatory damages and finds “by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201(1)(a) (LexisNexis 2012) (emphasis added). In finding by clear and convincing evidence that Thurston committed fraud on Bodell, the jury necessarily made a finding of intentionally fraudulent conduct sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) permits punitive damages when compensatory damages have been awarded and clear and convincing evidence establishes intentionally fraudulent conduct.

LRM Trucking v. Baxter Trucking · filed 2021-11-30(1)(a)

Utah law authorizes punitive damages if compensatory damages have been awarded and it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the tortfeasor are the result of intentionally fraudulent conduct.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) requires an award of compensatory damages before punitive damages may be recovered.

Hofmann v. Hall · filed 2020-03-02(1)(a)

Finally, absent an award of compensatory damages, Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages. Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201(1)(a). Whereas Plaintiffs cannot establish compensatory damages, their claim for punitive damages fails.

Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) generally allows punitive damages only when compensatory or general damages are awarded.

Ruesch v. Purple Shovel · filed 2021-03-29(1)(a)

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, punitive damages may be awarded only if compensatory or general damages are awarded.”127 Here, because Plaintiffs’ claims all fail as a matter of law, as discussed above, Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages also fails.

Section 78B-8-201(2)’s restriction on admitting evidence of a party’s wealth is procedural, so federal procedure governs its admission in federal court.

Rossi v. University of Utah · filed 2024-03-11(2)

As Plaintiff indicated to the Court, Utah law provides that “[e]vidence of party’s wealth or financial condition shall be admissible only after a finding of liability for punitive damages has been made.”1 However, because this issue is procedural in nature, the Court applies the applicable federal rule rather than that of the state.

Section 78B-8-201(2) governs evidence of financial condition for punitive damages but does not limit pretrial discovery of that information.

Cartwright · filed 2026-01-07(2)

In fact, Utah law imposes such a rule by statute,16 but that statute is an evidentiary rule and not a limitation on discovery.