Olsen v. University of Phoenix, 244 P.3d 388

Olsen appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment for Phoenix; the Utah Court of Appeals affirms.
The court treats the summary-judgment determinations as conclusions of law, not factual findings, with de novo review.
Contract claim: e-resource fee $60 was not guaranteed to include textbooks or materials; fee charged only when accessing electronic materials.
Evidence shows books/materials are generally required and may be separate from tuition/fees; e-resource fee created a separate contract upon access.
UCPA claim: the fee was not deceptive, and debt reallocation and late fee were not deceptive; Olsen had not paid all tuition/charges.
FCRA claim: Olsen failed to show Phoenix refused to investigate; evidence indicates Phoenix did review disputed account.
Additional state-law claims: misrepresentation claims require reliance on material facts; emotional distress claims fail as not extreme.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the e-resource fee breach contract?	Olsen argues the quoted price included textbooks/materials.	Phoenix showed separate contract for access to electronic materials; fee not included in tuition.	No contract breach; fee separate and triggered by access.
Are UCPA claims viable regarding the e-resource fee and debt actions?	Olsen contends deceptive practices occurred in fee imposition and debt handling.	Fee disclosure and debt handling lacked deception; actions were not fraudulent.	UCPA claims fail; no deceptive practices shown.
Does Olsen's FCRA §1681s-2 claim survive based on investigation of disputes?	Phoenix refused to investigate disputed debt.	Evidence shows review of dispute; no guaranteed investigation requirement exists.	FCRA claim fails.
Do misrepresentation and emotional distress claims withstand summary judgment?	There were misrepresentations and severe distress.	No material misrepresentation or severe distress; reliance and outrageous conduct lacking.	Claims fail.

Schurtz v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 814 P.2d 1108 (Utah 1991) (summary-judgment review is review of legal conclusions)
Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 56 P.3d 524 (Utah 2002) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
Harnicher v. Univ. of Utah Med. Ctr., 962 P.2d 67 (Utah 1998) (negligent infliction requires serious distress)
Price-Orem Inv. Co. v. Rollins, Brown & Gunnell, Inc., 713 P.2d 55 (Utah 1986) (reliance element in misrepresentation)
Dugan v. Jones, 615 P.2d 1239 (Utah 1980) (presently existing material fact and reliance)