459 P.3d 1017
Utah2020Background
- UDOT condemned two small fee parcels (756 sq ft and 928 sq ft) and an 8,825 sq ft perpetual slope easement from Target and Miller in 2009 to build a raised, diverging‑diamond interchange connecting two highway projects.
- UDOT built a berm on the condemned easement that supported the raised on‑ramp; most of the interchange was on other parcels.
- Claimants’ mall lost a convenient right‑out access to northbound I‑15 and suffered reduced visibility after construction; an appraiser testified to a $2,381,294 decline in market value.
- A jury awarded severance damages of $2.381M; UDOT moved for JNOV and appealed, arguing claimants failed to prove causation and that damages were limited to on‑taken‑parcel work (or required the taken parcel to be essential to the whole project); UDOT also challenged damages tied to sound walls.
- The court of appeals affirmed under a presumption that a view‑impairing “structure” partially on taken land establishes causation; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, clarified the governing statutory test (Utah Code §78B‑6‑511(1)(b)), rejected the “essential to the project”/structure presumption, but affirmed the judgment on statutory grounds and for briefing reasons as to the sound walls.
Issues
| Issue | Claimants' Argument | UDOT's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimants proved causation for severance damages under §78B‑6‑511(1)(b) | Appraiser evidence tied diminution to loss of access and visibility caused by the new interchange | Claimants failed to show damages were caused by the improvement as proposed (or by the portion built on taken land) | Court adopts statutory causation test: damages recoverable if caused "by reason of" severance and construction of the improvement in the manner proposed; jury had sufficient evidence; verdict affirmed |
| Whether compensable "improvement" is limited to parts built on the taken parcel or requires the taken parcel be ‘‘essential to the project as a whole’’ | The relevant improvement is the entire interchange (the berm is a component) and serves the same transportation purpose | Damages should be limited to components actually built on the taken property or require a showing that the taken parcel was essential to the overall project | Court rejects limiting test and the "essential to the project" standard; defines "improvement" by statutory text: an amelioration serving the same purpose, completed at/near the time of taking, as proposed by the condemnor |
| Whether UDOT preserved/adequately briefed its challenge to damages for sound walls | Sound walls were part of the improvement and affected market value | Sound walls are not part of the interchange and UDOT’s briefing failed to identify location and contest the alternative jury ground | Court finds UDOT’s briefing inadequate on appeal because it attacked only one of two jury instruction bases; general verdict stands, so affirmance is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Ivers v. Utah Dep't of Transp., 154 P.3d 802 (Utah 2007) (discussed prior framework for offsite severance damages and the "essential to the project" concept)
- Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 275 P.3d 208 (Utah 2011) (addressed scope of market‑value severance damages; affirmed full compensation principle)
- Utah State Road Comm'n v. Miya, 526 P.2d 926 (Utah 1974) (earlier discussion about view‑impairing structures and severance damages)
- State v. Harvey Real Estate, 57 P.3d 1088 (Utah 2002) (language suggesting limits to damages tied to work on the severed parcel)
- Utah Dep't of Transp. v. D'Ambrosio, 743 P.2d 1220 (Utah 1987) (earlier articulation of severance damages tied to construction on the condemned part)