USA – UTAH Trends and Developments Contributed by: Layne Smith, Neal Monson, Paul Justensen and Cloe Nixon, Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Traditional framework for claims Utah law adheres to a traditional framework for fraud- based claims, with courts emphasising clear plead - ing standards, reasonable reliance, and the boundary between contract and tort. To establish a claim for common law fraud in Utah, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that a representation was made (2) concerning a pres - ently existing material fact (3) which was false and (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false or (b) made recklessly, knowing that there was insufficient knowledge upon which to base such a representation, (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it and (6) that the other party, acting reason - ably and in ignorance of its falsity, (7) did in fact rely upon it (8) and was thereby induced to act (9) to that party’s injury and damage ( Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v Harrison , 2003 UT 14, 70 P.3d 35 (Sup.Ct.)). These elements have remained consistent over time and form the foundation for related claims such as fraudu - lent inducement. Importantly, Utah courts require not only actual reliance, but reasonable reliance under the circumstances, particularly in transactions involving sophisticated parties or negotiated agreements. Fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation and concealment of material facts Fraudulent inducement is recognised under Utah law as a species of common law fraud arising in the formation of a contract. However, courts distinguish actionable misrepresentations of present fact from non-actionable statements of future intent. A breach of contract, standing alone, does not give rise to a fraud claim absent evidence that the promisor lacked intent to perform at the time the statement was made. Utah recognises negligent misrepresentation where a party, owing a duty of care, supplies false information for the guidance of others in business transactions. Liability typically arises only where there is a special relationship or other circumstances giving rise to a duty to provide accurate information, and where reli - ance is foreseeable and reasonable. Fraud may also be established through intentional concealment of material facts where a duty to dis - close exists. Scienter may be satisfied by either actual knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth; how -
ever, “intentional fraud” and “reckless fraud” are not recognised as separate causes of action under Utah law. Statute of limitations Claims for fraud are subject to a three-year statute of limitations under Utah law, which accrues upon the plaintiff’s actual discovery of the fraud or when the fraud reasonably should have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Utah’s three- year, discovery-based statute of limitations for fraud has important implications for M&A transactions because it can extend potential liability well beyond the default survival periods negotiated by the parties. Although representations and warranties are typical - ly subject to defined survival periods – often one to two years – fraud claims may be brought years after closing if the alleged misconduct is not discovered until later. This creates meaningful tail risk for sellers and places heightened importance on how “fraud” is defined and treated in the agreement, particularly with respect to carveouts from indemnification caps, baskets and exclusive remedy provisions. At the same time, Utah courts’ emphasis on reasonable reliance and constructive discovery introduces uncertainty as to when a claim accrues, often leading to fact-inten - sive disputes over what the buyer knew or should have known through diligence. As a result, parties should carefully align their contractual risk allocation with the realities of Utah law, recognising that fraud operates as a potential overlay that can both extend liability and complicate enforcement of negotiated limitations. Sandbagging Versus Anti-Sandbagging In the transactional context, sandbagging refers to a situation where a buyer attempts to recover for a breach of representations and warranties despite hav - ing knowledge of the breach prior to closing. Given that indemnification provisions are among the most heavily negotiated terms in M&A agreements, whether a buyer may “sandbag” a seller is often an important negotiated contentious issue. Buyers typically seek to preserve their rights through express pro-sandbag - ging provisions to obtain the full benefit of the rep - resentations and warranties they negotiated. On the other hand, sellers push for anti-sandbagging clauses that limit post-closing claims based on known issues.
1437 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook