Utah Department of Transportation v. Admiral Beverage Corp.
2011 UT 62
Utah2011Background
- UDOT condemned Admiral Beverage's property for the I-15 reconstruction, including impact on view and visibility from Admiral's remaining property.
- Appraisals before and after Admiral's purchase included view/visibility factors but attempts to isolate those factors into separate values were not possible.
- Parcels were condemned in 1997; Admiral later acquired the Mark parcel and cases were consolidated for trial.
- District court and court of appeals had limited severance damages by following Ivers v. Utah Dep't of Transp., restricting damages to protectable rights.
- This opinion overruling Ivers holds that severance damages may be based on the diminution in the market value of the remainder, with remand for proceedings.
- The decision addresses only real property takings, not regulatory or constructive takings; it emphasizes constitutional and statutory frameworks for severance damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ivers should be overruled to permit severance damages for loss of visibility | Admiral argues loss of visibility is a compensable damage under Utah law. | UDOT contends no constitutionally protected interest in visibility; damages limited to protectable rights. | Yes; Ivers overruled; full market-value approach allowed. |
| What is the proper measure of severance damages when a portion is taken | Admiral seeks damages reflecting diminution in value of the remainder. | UDOT argues damages tied to protectable rights; value attribution limited. | Diminution in market value of the remainder governs severance damages. |
| Whether statutory framework supports the market-value measure | Statutes require accounting for damages accruing to remainder after severance. | Statutory framework should align with prior Ivers rule. | Statutory framework supports market-value measurement and subtraction of any benefits. |
| Whether overruling Ivers will cause more harm than good | Overruling is necessary to fulfill constitutional and fair-value goals. | Overruling could disrupt precedent. | More good than harm; Ivers is unworkable and incorrect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ivers v. Utah Department of Transportation, 154 P.3d 802 (Utah 2007) (overruled to allow full severance damages based on market value)
- Bingham v. Roosevelt City Corp., 235 P.3d 730 (Utah 2010) (constitutional takings protections extend to damage as well as taking)
- Stockdale v. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co., 77 P.2d 849 (Utah 1939) (damages measured as diminution in value of remainder)
- Cooke v. Utah Dept. of Transportation, 28 P.3d 697 (Utah 2001) (principle of putting landowners in as good a monetary position as if not taken)
- Hildale v. Cooke, 28 P.3d 697 (Utah 2001) (valuation principles for just compensation)
- S. Pac. Co. v. Arthur, 352 P.2d 693 (Utah 1960) (market value as the standard of just compensation)
- Grutter Redevelopment Agency v. Grutter, 734 P.2d 434 (Utah 1986) (exception for condemnation purposes not to inflate value)
- United States v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (constitutional basis for just compensation principles)
- City of Hildale v. Cooke, 28 P.3d 697 (Utah 2001) (reiteration of just compensation measure and restorative goals)