Peak Alarm Co. v. Salt Lake City Corp.
2013 UT 8
| Utah | 2013Background
- In 2003-2004 Howe, Peak Alarm’s employee, faced police actions and a prior related case arising from a false alarm at West High School.
- Howe served a notice of claim with Salt Lake City in June 2004 and filed a district court complaint in April 2005 alleging defamation and false arrest, among other claims.
- Peak Alarm I (2010 UT 22) discussed timely UGIA notice, but did not decide the UGIA–private limitations interaction relevant here.
- On remand, the district court denied summary judgment, holding UGIA timely governed Howe’s state-law claims; City appealed.
- The Utah Supreme Court addresses whether UGIA replaces or supplements the private-party one-year limitations and whether Howe’s claims were timely under UGIA.
- The Court concludes UGIA governs claims against governmental entities and their employees, so Title 78B-2-302(4) does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does UGIA fully govern claims against government actors, superseding private-party limitations? | Howe: UGIA provides sole limitations framework; private limits may not apply. | City: both UGIA and private statutes may apply concurrently. | UGIA governs; private limitations do not apply to governmental claims. |
| Do the limitations in 78B-2-302(4) apply to defamation/false imprisonment against government parties? | Howe: UGIA and private limits are aligned; 78B-2-302(4) may not govern here. | City: 78B-2-302(4) applies unless displaced by UGIA. | 78B-2-302(4) does not apply to claims against governmental parties. |
| Is the interaction between UGIA and Title 78B-2 properly analyzed under law-of-the-case principles? | Howe: Peak Alarm I implicitly treated UGIA as governing limitations similarly to 78B-2-302(4). | City: Peak Alarm I did not decide the private vs UGIA limitation interaction. | UGIA interaction clarified; Peak Alarm I did not bind on the private-limit question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peak Alarm Co. v. Salt Lake City Corp. (Peak Alarm I), 2010 UT 22 (Utah Supreme Court (2010)) (timeliness under UGIA; notice of claim sufficient)
- Utah Dept. of Transp. v. Ivers (Ivers II), 2009 UT 56 (Utah Supreme Court (2009)) (interpretation of remand scope and procedural limits)
- Ivers v. Utah Dep’t of Transp. (Ivers I), 2007 UT 19 (Utah Supreme Court (2007)) (right of view; severance damages context)
- Thorpe v. Washington City, 2010 UT App 297 (Utah Court of Appeals (2010)) (Whistleblower Act interaction with UGIA/limitation periods)
- Turner v. Staker & Parson Cos., 2012 UT 30 (Utah Supreme Court (2012)) (statutory interpretation and harmonization principles)