414 P.3d 1080
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- UDOT rebuilt the I-15/American Fork Main Street interchange using a diverging-diamond design, raising bridges and ramps and requiring new retaining walls and slopes.
- UDOT condemned three small interests from the Alpine Valley Shopping Center (owned by Target and Weingarten/Miller): two tiny fee parcels and a larger perpetual slope easement.
- The new design eliminated a heavily used right-out exit from the shopping center and decreased visibility of the center due to taller/wider interchange elements.
- Claimants sought just compensation for the taken parcels ($87,910 awarded) and severance damages for diminution in market value of the remaining property (~$2.38 million awarded), attributed to loss of visibility and loss of the right-out exit.
- UDOT moved for directed verdict / JNOV on severance damages, arguing Claimants failed to prove causation—specifically that the condemned parcels were "essential to the project as a whole." The trial court denied and the jury awarded severance damages; UDOT appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimants proved causation for severance damages for loss of visibility | The entire Interchange is the view-impairing "structure"; part of that Interchange (slope supporting the on-ramp) was on condemned land, so causation is presumed | The relevant "structure" should be parsed into component parts; only components built on condemned land can give rise to presumed causation | Court held the Interchange is one interconnected structure; because part of it was built on condemned land, causation for visibility loss is presumed and Claimants could proceed to jury |
| Whether Claimants must show the condemned parcels were "essential to the project as a whole" to recover visibility-related severance damages | Not required when the view-impairing structure was at least partially constructed on condemned land; presumption of causation applies | Urged that, absent testimony that parcels were "essential," severance damages are barred under Ivers | Court held Claimants need not prove "essentiality" because the Interchange was at least partially on condemned land, invoking the presumption from Miya/Ivers framework |
| Whether severance damages may include loss of visibility | Claimants relied on Admiral Beverage (overruling Ivers) and sought a before-and-after market-value appraisal including visibility effects | UDOT argued evidence was insufficient to isolate causation/values for specific components and had earlier taken a narrow view precluding visibility awards | Court applied Admiral Beverage: severance damages can include reduced visibility; before-and-after valuation is proper and admissible here |
| Whether Claimants’ damages proof was inadequate because appraiser did not itemize losses (right-out exit vs. visibility vs. specific components) | Appraiser provided before-and-after market-value comparison; itemization unnecessary under Admiral Beverage; damages therefore admissible | UDOT argued lack of line-item values made proof insufficient, particularly for right-out exit and for visibility tied to components not on condemned land | Court held the composite before-and-after appraisal was sufficient on these facts and affirmed the severance damages award |
Key Cases Cited
- Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Ivers, 154 P.3d 802 (Utah 2007) (discusses causation rules for visibility-based severance damages)
- Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 275 P.3d 208 (Utah 2011) (overrules prior restriction and permits visibility losses within a before-and-after market-value severance analysis)
- Utah State Road Comm’n v. Miya, 526 P.2d 926 (Utah 1974) (compensation available where view-impairing structure is constructed at least in part on condemned land)
- State v. Harvey Real Estate, 57 P.3d 1088 (Utah 2002) (limits severance claims to damages caused by improvements on the severed property rather than distant facets of a large project)