437 P.3d 362
Utah2019Background
- Utah amended civil rules in 2011 to create a three-tier discovery/damage structure (Rule 26) to promote proportionality: Tier 1 (≤ $50,000), Tier 2 ($50,000–$300,000 or non-monetary), Tier 3 (≥ $300,000). Rule 8(a) waives right to recover above a tier’s cap unless amended under Rule 15.
- Robert Pilot pled Tier 2 in an auto-accident suit and the parties proceeded under Tier 2 discovery limits; no pretrial amendment of the tier was sought.
- At trial Pilot presented evidence (expert testimony) claiming damages well over $300,000; the jury returned $640,989 total damages.
- After verdict Pilot moved under Rule 15(b)(1)/(2) to amend the pleadings to a Tier 3 designation, arguing Hill impliedly consented to trying higher damages.
- The district court and the court of appeals denied post-trial amendment and reduced the award to $299,999.99; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pilot) | Defendant's Argument (Hill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff may amend tier designation post-trial under Rule 15(b)(1) based on implied consent | Rule 15(b)(1) allows amendment after judgment when an unpleaded issue was tried by consent; Pilot contends tier change is such an issue | Tier designation was pleaded (Tier 2), so it was not an unpleaded issue; Rule 15(b)(1) does not permit changing a pleaded tier after trial | Held: No — tier designation pleaded is not an unpleaded issue; Rule 15(b)(1) doesn't permit post-trial tier changes |
| Whether Rule 15(a)/(b) permits post-trial amendment of tier so plaintiff can recover above tier cap | Pilot argued Rule 15 allows conforming pleadings to evidence even after judgment to avoid unfair reduction | Hill argued Rule 8(a) and Rule 26 tie discovery limits and damage caps to the pleaded tier; Rule 15(a) only governs pretrial amendments | Held: No — Rule 15(a) governs pretrial amendments; Rule 15(b) cannot be used to alter tier once trial has begun |
| Whether Hill impliedly consented to trying a Tier 3 case by not objecting to high damages evidence | Pilot contended Hill’s failure to object and litigating the damages constituted implied consent | Hill’s conduct (limited discovery within Tier 2 limits, pretrial statements that excess would be reduced, defense strategy) shows no consent | Held: No — factual record does not support implied consent; Hill acted consistent with Tier 2 procedures |
| Whether presenting evidence of damages above the tier constitutes trying an unpleaded issue | Pilot claimed high-damage evidence put tier issue into trial context | Court explained evidence of higher damages can be trial strategy and does not automatically convert the tier issue or waive tier limits | Held: No — proof of larger damages alone does not convert a pleaded tier or create an unpleaded issue for Rule 15(b) purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery, P.C., 367 P.3d 1006 (Utah 2016) (standard for reviewing court of appeals decisions on certiorari)
- Keller v. Southwood N. Med. Pavilion, Inc., 959 P.2d 102 (Utah 1998) (trial court given broad discretion to determine implied consent under Rule 15(b))
- Hill v. Estate of Allred, 216 P.3d 929 (Utah 2009) (implied consent may be found where evidence is introduced without objection and parties understood it targeted an unpleaded issue)
- Helf v. Chevron USA, Inc., 361 P.3d 63 (Utah 2015) (Utah permits pleading inconsistent theories in the alternative)