*1 (“Bear Company River”), Mutual Insurance intervening plaintiff. Hind, Judy Spencer HIND and R. J. \ Appellants, Plaintiffs and injured riding Plaintiffs were while on motorcycle, they their when collided with by Quilles. an automobile driven defendant QUILLES aka Carmen Go I. Carmen Quilles uninsured. was Plaintiffs had not Torres, Quilles, and Porfidia mez motorcycle they riding, insured the were Respondents, policy by but had an insurance issued Bear River that covered two automobiles owned Company, Insurance Bear River Mutual by plaintiffs. policy The contained unin- Intervening Respondent. Plaintiff coverage, sured motorist as described un- (1981). der Utah Code Ann. 41-12-21.1 § No. 870058. Plaintiffs contend that are entitled to Supreme Court of Utah. under the benefits uninsured motorist cov- erage policy of that for incurred 5, Nov. 1987. Quilles. in the collision with policy specifi-
The issued Bear River coverage cally excludes such for ve- by plaintiffs hicle owned not included in the policy premium paid. and for which no was In our recent case of Clark v. State Farm Co., Mutual Automobile Insurance (1987), P.2d 1227 we held that neither the public policy statute nor forbids restric- coverage tions of uninsured motorist such policy. as the one contained in this That controlling plaintiffs’ case is on first issue appeal. as all other Inasmuch issues finding coverage depend on a under the judg- policy, we do not address them. The ment is affirmed. Costs to Bear River. INTERNATIONAL CORPO- CAMBELT RATION, corporation, and The Utah Company, Travellers Insurance a Con- corporation, Ap- necticut Plaintiffs and pellants, DALTON, individually Bob and dba Company, Shannon Service Green, City, Frederick N. Salt Lake Respondent. Defendant and plaintiffs appellants. No. 20034. Duffin, City, Lake Thomas A. Salt Supreme Court of Utah. respondents. defendants and Nov. 1987. PER CURIAM: appeal summary judg-
Plaintiffs from insurer, granted to their Bear River
ment
ZIMMERMAN, Justice: Plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Cam- Corporation (“Cambelt”) belt International appeals rejecting from a its contract, negligent claims for breach of workmanship, express and breach of implied against warranties defendant/coun- Dalton, doing terelaimant Bob business as Company. Shannon The jury Service $35,624 awarded Dalton against on a for Cambelt counterclaim ser- vices We rendered. affirm. party,
Cambelt contracted with a third NOWSCO, to a erect four-tank sand stor- age Farmington, unit New Mexico. Cambelt had erected similar structure in Vernal, Utah, and Dalton had worked project. the Utah After Cambelt contract- ed with Farmington for the NOWSCO facil- ity, representative a Cambelt asked Dalton to responsible become a subcontractor for erecting support for structures According tanks. testimony, to Dalton’s he indicated to the representative Cambelt that he act could not as a subcontractor engaged because he was in other work. Cambelt then asked Dalton to hire out some employees, of his stating supervised by would be Cambelt's service engineer. agreed crew, Dalton to furnish a agreed compensate Cambelt Dalton. agreement This was oral.
Cambelt sent purchase later Dalton a order, signed. which Dalton never The purchase order appli- was standard form purchase goods cable to the and con- tained certain standard warranties. crew,
Dalton’s under the supervision of engineer, Cambelt’s service erected the tank platform using provided bolts However, Cambelt. crew Dalton’s did not joints platform. weld the Cam- engineer belt’s service inspected the unit and determined that Dalton’s crew had completed its work. The crew was then discharged and returned to Cam- Vernal. put belt place, the tanks into completed the project, purchas- and turned it over to the Condie, Tateoka, DeLyle H. Reid Salt er, NOWSCO. When NOWSCOloaded one plaintiffs City, appellants. Lake for 600,000 sand, tanks pounds Howard, Provo, Jackson B. defendant collapsed, structure damaging respondent. the three other tanks. NOWSCO, Cambelt, charged, and Dalton all it is unnecessary to consider Cam- agreed that arguments the immediate cause of the belt’s various unless we first collapse supporting was the failure of the it conclude that was error to submit the joints bolts. The had case on been bolted verdict. together should also have been welded. complicated This was a case with a brought against Dalton, Cambelt suit conflicting number of claims and several contending responsible was recovery. alternative theories for Cambelt *3 proper supporting the erection of the struc- special court, submitted verdicts to the but improperly per-
ture and that Dalton’s crew given. were not special The use of job. argued formed the Cambelt also that interrogatories or verdicts is a matter for express implied Dalton had made and war- the trial court’s sound discretion. Utah regarding ranties the workmanship level of 49; Lohner, 93, R.Civ.P. Reiser v. 641 P.2d on the structure. This contention was (Utah 1982). Special 98 verdicts or inter based, in part, unsigned purchase rogatories jury might to the have assisted order. jury sorting the in out the difficult issues Indeed, presented. general the verdict that disagreed Dalton with Cambelt’s charac- the court submitted to the jury may well of relationship. terization their Dalton permitted jurors grap have the to avoid agree claimed that he did not to erect the pling However, complex with those issues. structure, supporting agreed only but object Cambelt did not to the trial court’s furnish a crew to Cambelt and that Cam- provide failure to jury special the with ver provide supervision, plans, belt was to dicts. Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 51 Therefore, argued, materials. Dalton he provides that party may assign as “[n]o nothing done more had than hire out his giving error give the or the failure to an employees to and Cambelt was objects instruction unless he thereto. In directly chargeable their with conduct. objecting giving instruction, to the of an Dalton also contended that the structure party distinctly must state the matter to failed, would if have even it had been weld- objects grounds which he and the for his properly, design ed because deficiencies. objection.” object Since Cambelt did not Dalton counterclaimed for the value of the below, give it cannot raise the failure to labor, basing crew’s the counterclaim alter- special interrogatories ap or verdicts on natively oral quantum on an contract or on peal. See, Eakins, e.g., v. Jensen 575 P.2d jury meruit. The found no cause of action 179, (Utah 1978); Pistone, Morgan 180 on Cambelt’s claims and awarded Dalton 63, 64, 839, (1970). 25 Utah 2d 475 P.2d 840 $35,642 on his counterclaim. provides It is true that rule 51 also that appeal, On Cambelt contends that the “in this Court its discretion and the admitting portions trial court erred in justice” may interests of review an instruc- testimony expert witness, the of Dalton’s properly tional error which has not been the jury that trial court did not instruct the However, preserved. Cambelt has not met properly contributory neg- on the issues of showing special its burden of circumstanc- ligence comparative negligence, warranting See, es e.g., such a review. facts, jury that on the the could not have Realty Agency, E.A. Strout Western Inc. gave express found that Dalton no im- or Sons, Inc., 1320, Foy W.C. & 665 P.2d plied warranties. Some of the errors Cam- (Utah 1983). 1322 Thus dowe not consider might justify belt addresses reversal whether there was error in the failure to gone this jury special case had to the on give special interrogatories. or verdicts interrogatories jury verdicts or and the had Therefore, judg found for Dalton on one of the issues to we are faced with a upon general which the claims of error are reject directed. ment based However, the case jury ing against went to the on a all of claims Dalton Cambelt’s general below, explained granting verdict. As judgment be- on his coun against cause we find for that verdict on at terclaim Cambelt. When a case is theory against least one no error on is submitted to a several alternative 1242
grounds
returned,
Thomas,
766,
and a
verdict is
(Utah
Hake v.
705 P.2d
jury properly
we will affirm if
could 1985).
the
verdict,
successfully
“To
attack the
prevailing party
have found for the
on
appellant
an
must marshall all the evidence
comprehended by
gener-
of the theories
the
supporting the verdict and then demon
Squibb
al verdict. E.g., Barson v. E.R.
&
that,
viewing
strate
even
the
evidence
Sons, Inc.,
(Utah
832,
1984)
682 P.2d
light
verdict,
the
most favorable to that
(citing Leigh
Carpet
Furniture and
Co. v.
evidence is insufficient to
it.” Id.
Isom,
293,
(Utah 1982)).
657 P.2d
301-02
(citing
Corp.,
v. BMG
700 P.2d
Scharf
1068,
(Utah 1985));1
Qua
Morgan v.
The errors
raises on
that Cambelt
Co.,
ilbrook Condominium
704 P.2d
appeal all
theory
relate to Cambelt’s
(Utah 1985). Therefore,
577 n. 3
gener
Cambelt and Dalton entered into an oral
al verdict in favor of Dalton is sustainable
contract under which Dalton would act as a
regard
without
may
to whether errors
have
subcontractor. Dalton’s defense and his
been committed
respect
to other is
theory
counterclaim
were based
sues
jury.
also submitted to the
Barson v.
storage
he did not contract to construct the
*4
Squibb
Sons, Inc.,
E.R.
&
warranty. After that evi- Plaintiff dence, give Appellant, to refused to the the trial court jury on the law in this any instructions negligence and contributory state on com- JOHNSON, Markay Bryce Johnson, though parative negligence, even the de- individually, Markay Johnson and proposed fendant submitted instructions on Bryce Johnson, Gooseberry dba Es subject. Both admission of such the tates, partnership, a give evidence and the refusal such in- Respondents. major assign- structions are Cambelt’s appeal. ESTATES, ments of error on this partnership GOOSEBERRY (itself consisting Enterprises of Tokaco We now refuse the propriety to consider family partnership consisting of Wil action, indulging the trial court’s in the liam T. his Gardner and children Wil presumption that the verdict was Gardner, Gardner, liam Todd Kari Ann ground reached Gardner), Latigo, and Corrina Ann there was no contract construction between Inc., corporation; Gardner; Tell W. parties, to which the a defense claimed Bryce Johnson; Markay Johnson and pertain. expressed errors my do not As Elfervig, Leonard V. all dba Gooseber dissenting opinion in Squibb, Barson v. ry Estates, Partnership, a Utah Plain supra, practice I such would not follow Respondents, tiffs and appellate our for the review reasons dis- cussed and upon authority based cited *5 Harry Gates, THORSEN and Donald therein. Appellants. For it may what little consolation be to 18960. No. strictly if the jury followed the them, given any contributory instructions Supreme of Court Utah. negligence or of fault Cambelt should not Nov. 1987. have influenced their verdict. The instruc- they made tions it clear that found that plans specifications
Cambelt delivered part
to Dalton agree- which were them,
ment between and Dalton failed to thereby
follow them and constructed a
faulty platform, defective should
return a verdict in favor Cambelt. Con-
tributory negligence fault part or
Cambelt was not mentioned as a factor
they should consider.