Ward v. McGarry, 511 P.3d 1213

Ward and McGarry were in a romantic relationship for ~2.5 years and have one child together; Ward sent McGarry intimate photos while dating.
After the relationship ended, Ward and McGarry litigated custody; Ward texted McGarry asking him to delete the nude photos and promised not to use them in custody proceedings; McGarry agreed.
Years later McGarry’s ex‑wife reported that her son had seen the photos on McGarry’s phone and sent Ward a photo as proof.
Ward sued McGarry asserting breach of contract, promissory estoppel, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and punitive damages; fraud was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds and is not on appeal.
The district court granted McGarry’s motion to dismiss, holding (1) emotional‑distress damages aren’t recoverable under the contract language, (2) promissory estoppel is unavailable where an enforceable contract governs, (3) the economic loss rule bars the tort claims, and (4) punitive damages cannot stand without viable tort claims.
Ward appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether breach of contract supports emotional‑distress damages	Ward: contract over intimate photos is personal; emotional harm was foreseeable and the primary damage	McGarry: contract language lacks any specific agreement to compensate emotional harm	Court: Dismissed — foreseeability may exist but contract lacks specific language showing parties contemplated emotional damages, so none recoverable
Whether promissory estoppel is available	Ward: because contract does not provide emotional damages, equitable promissory estoppel should apply	McGarry: an enforceable contract governs the subject matter, so equitable relief is not available	Court: Dismissed — promissory estoppel not available where an enforceable express contract governs the dispute
Whether tort claims survive the economic loss rule	Ward: tort duty (not to show photos to others) is independent of contractual duty to delete photos	McGarry: tort claims arise from the contractual duty to delete, so barred by economic loss rule	Court: Dismissed — economic loss rule bars tort claims; Ward failed to preserve argument that an independent tort duty to her existed
Whether punitive damages claim can proceed	Ward: punitive damages tied to tort claims and should be reinstated if torts are reinstated	McGarry: punitive damages are not an independent claim and depend on viable torts	Court: Dismissed — punitive damages cannot stand absent viable tort claims

Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing Homeowners Ass'n v. Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing, LC, 221 P.3d 234 (Utah 2009) (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
Cabaness v. Thomas, 232 P.3d 486 (Utah 2010) (emotional‑distress contract damages allowed only if expressly contemplated by contract language)
Gregory & Swapp, PLLC v. Kranendonk, 424 P.3d 897 (Utah 2018) (clarifies limits on inferring emotional damages from contract language; focus on contract text)
AGTC Inc. v. CoBon Energy LLC, 447 P.3d 123 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (equitable claims should not be dismissed when contract enforceability remains in dispute)
Youngblood v. Auto‑Owners Ins. Co., 158 P.3d 1088 (Utah 2007) (promissory estoppel arises where no formal contract exists)
Ashby v. Ashby, 227 P.3d 246 (Utah 2010) (equitable remedies unavailable when an enforceable contract governs the rights at issue)
Mann v. American W. Life Ins. Co., 586 P.2d 461 (Utah 1978) (recovery in quasi‑contract not available where express contract covers the subject matter)
KTM Health Care Inc. v. SG Nursing Home LLC, 436 P.3d 151 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (explains economic loss rule and when tort claims are barred)
Thatcher v. Lang, 462 P.3d 397 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (equitable remedies not a substitute where contract remedies exist)