Stone Flood & Fire Restoration, Inc. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
268 P.3d 170
Utah2011Background
- Fire destroyed Stone Flood's Utah location in November 2000, triggering an insurance claim with Safeco.
- Stone Flood and the Stones filed suit in 2007; district court dismissed Stone Flood's claims as time-barred and Stones lacked standing.
- Safeco paid significant amounts under the policy and invoked appraisal by written demand, initiating an appraisal procedure.
- Appraisal produced a written opinion; the district court tolled the limitations period during appraisal, calculating a 1098-day lapse.
- Appellate court held the tolling began on February 3, 2003 (written appraisal-demand date), saving Stone Flood's contract claims; Stones lacked standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appraisal tolling was calculated correctly | Stone Flood contends tolling started Feb. 3, 2003. | Safeco argues tolling began later during the appraisal period. | Tolling began Feb. 3, 2003; Stone Flood's contract claims saved. |
| Whether Stones have standing to pursue policy contract claims | Stones argue they were de facto insureds via non-waiver. | Safeco contends Stones were not named insureds and lack standing. | Stones lack standing to pursue contract claims. |
| Whether Stones have standing to pursue intentional infliction of emotional distress | Stones seek personal EMI claims as shareholders | Stocks framework limits shareholder standing to distinct, non-derivative injuries. | Stones lack standing; injuries are derivative of corporation's harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stocks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 3 P.3d 722 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (shareholder standing requires distinct, non-derivative injury for IIED)
- Norman v. Murray First Thrift & Loan Co., 596 P.2d 1028 (Utah 1979) (corporate injuries generally slant to corporation, not shareholders)
- Kush v. American States Insurance Co., 853 F.2d 1380 (7th Cir. 1988) (shareholder standing and corporate form considerations)
- Pepe v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 604 A.2d 194 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992) (distinguishes direct vs derivative injuries to shareholders)