*1 when an tortiously brings legal principal to answer for the principal's (which partially own actions.7 is at least motivated to carry employer's out purposes) if it is within scope employee's of the CONCLUSION the action. Accordingly, Appel {12 Appellants' statutory challenge fails lants to succeed on their claim of vicarious they did not marshal the evidence liability, Hodges, based on they would have regarding bad faith. Appellants' vicarious Wardley's (1) show that suit brought: liability argument is legal justifica- without (2) tort, (3) by Hansen who acting tion. Accordingly, we affirm. seope employment in bring ing the Appellants suit. alleged, have not 113 I1CONCUR: WILLIAM A. shown, nor any of these factors. THORNE, JR., Judge. Nevertheless, Appellants urge us to 114 I stretch CONCUR IN THE liability vicarious RESULT: principles set ORME, GREGORYK. Judge. forth in Hodges as follows: "[Where

principal legal proceedings agents's behest, the principal has no less

liability as the main actor than it would have if agent had instituted such proceedings

on behalf principal." Appellants cite no authority proposition.6 for this Instead, they take language from Hodges and remold App 2001UT 54 it to is, fit theory. their That recast the GREAT passage, WEST liability COMPANY, CASUALTY "the principal of a is affect Lloyd Morris, Judy by ed Morris, K. knowledge agent of an concerning Appellants, Plaintiffs acts," matter as to which he id. at 157 {emphasis added), Wardley's to mean lability is effected knowledge Hansen's that Han UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR sen acted fraudulently toward the Mascaros. I-X, TATION and Does Defendants What Hodges for, however, stands is that the Appellees. agent's knowledge of an opposing party's in nocence, at the time the agent tortiously No. 20000010-CA. legal imitiates proceedings on behalf of his Court Appeals of Utah. principal, imputed principal. In Hodges, Cosgrove, agent, initiated Feb. legal action, here, agent whereas Hansen did not initiate the action. Hansen Appel lants Hodges, rewrite without citing any au

thority any jurisdiction to do so. There legal is no support Appellants' claim that liability vicarious applied should be in a man ner imputes agent's knowledge to Appellants, propose also pub- an "unfairness" 7. Use liability of vicarious as a means of award- argument lic policy attorney fees under section 78-27-56 is a position. They argue that unfairness arises because their task better suited legislature than to this liability theory vicarious legislative runs into a Court. purely On a spectrum, theoretical it is roadblock, which ability limits the to file suits for possible point there ais knowledge brokers; estate commissions to agents can- imputed principal to a in a case where the not sue. Thus, unless vicarious is in- liability principal initiates a upon suit based fraudulent voked, escape liability brokers can filing agent, actions of its but we see no need to draw bad faith claim for though commissions even today. that line encouraged agent. do so argument This persuade does not apply us to theory their novel liability. of vicarious

OPINION Judge: ORME, chal- Company Casualty West A11 Great Utah grant court's lenges for motion Transportation's Department inade- on the premised judgment, im- sovereign Utah's quacy reluctance, we some With munity scheme. affirm.

BACKGROUND October undisputed. On facts The a truck driving was 1997,

20, Lloyd Morris upon a cow he came Interstate and rolled cow He struck highway. Judy, a his wife Lloydand Both truck. and vehicle, injured, passenger truck The damaged. vehicle insured Transportation P by &M owned Company. Great Casualty West Great for the PM & compensated } truck. to the done the Utah 1998, 13, pursuant May T3 On Act, Code Utah see Governmental (1997 Supp.2000), & -388 §§ 63-80-1 Ann. against filed Morris (UDOT). Transportation Department (Supp. § 63-30-11 Ann. cow's 2000).1 The claim from resulted highway foray onto road maintaining its negligence seri sustained "[Morris] fence side significant well as person injury ous colli in this his semi-tractor damage to ex semi damage to sion.... claimant's Jensen, & Siegfried Handy, L. Preston nor Great Neither $48,000.00." ceeds Richman, F. Michael F. Michael Murray, and filed P ever M & City, for Associates, Lake Salt & Richman damage. vehicle Appellants. so Morris's 14 UDOT General, and Shurtleff, Attorney L. Mark his wife Morris February General, Attorney Kemp, Assistant Nancy L. UDOT.2 against injury suit personal City, Appellees. Lake add Great Salt amended later complaint from West, sought dam the vehicle P for paid M sum Judge Presiding Associate Before -> age. DAVIS, and ORME. JACKSON, Judges to recov- seek did not reader, complaint, In his to the convenience As a vehicle. to the do for the times er relevant at the effect provisions current- provisions materially not differ statutory recent most we cite effect, ly opinion. throughout this codifications On October UDOT moved for [alny person having a claim injury summary judgment against West, ar against entity, against guing that Great West's failure to file a for an act or omission occur- notice of claim barred it from pursuing, ring during performance of the em- lawsuit UDOT. ployee's opposed duties, seope of employ- motion arguing that the notice ment, under color of authority shall file *3 by filed Morris was put sufficient to a written notice of claim with entity the UDOT on notice of the before maintaining an action.... being by now Great West. The 63-80-11(2) § Code Ann. (Supp.2000). granted UDOT's Motion for Sum A notice of "(i) claim must contain a brief mary Judgment. Great appeals.3 facts; (ii) statement of the the nature of the asserted; (ii) the damages in ISSUE AND STANDARD OF by curred REVIEW claimant so far as § known." 63-80-11(8)(a). Id. In addition, 16 The sole issue on appeal is wheth the notice "shall be ... signed by person er Great rely upon can a timely notice making the claim or person's agent, by Morris, filed on behalf, his own attorney, parent, legal guardian[.]" identifies the loss sustained § The notice of claim West but fails to reference Great West as a must be filed with both attorney general party to the claim. Summary judgment agency concerned year within one proper only if genuine there is no issue of after arises, the claim or the claim is barred. material fact and the moving party is entitled § See id. 63-30-12. See also Rushton v. Salt to judgment as a matter of law. See Har Lake County, 36, 1999 ¶ 18, UT 977 P.2d ward v. Utah County, App 222, ¶ 2000 UT ("Failure 1201 to file such [of claim] 63 P.3d 1140. We review summary judg deprives the subject court of jurisdic matter ment correctness, determinations for accord tion."). particular deference to court, T9 Utah courts have held that the notice and evaluate the facts and inferences in the provisions of the Governmental light most favorable to the non-moving party. Act are to be strictly construed and that "full See Tallman v. City Hurricane, 1999 UT of compliance with requirements 55,¶ 1, 985P.2d 892. is a condi precedent tion right to maintain a suit." Scarborough v. Dist., Granite Sch. 531 ANALYSIS (Utah P.2d In general, even T7 Great argues that Morris's in situations where a agency notice of claim legally sufficient notify given actual notice of a party's claim, UDOT of Great West's property the party must still file a notice of claim in claim. Relying upon Moreno v. Board full compliance of with the statute in order to Education, 926 P.2d 1996), pursue its claim. Rushton, See 1999 UT 36 West contends that, as the real party ¶ at 977P.2d 1201. interest, it should be able "piggyback" on 1[ However, the Utah Supreme Court in Morris's notice of claim for the vehicle dam Moreno did loosen the standard for evaluat age. ing the adequacy of notices of claim to some T8 The Governmental Immunity Act re- thing less than "strict compliance" in certain quires that situations.4 Moreno involved the drowning 3. The Morrises have settled their claims with primarily issue case, relevant to this Sustice Rus- longer and are no involved in the case. opinion son's lead did not majority have support, opinion but his helpful concludes with a summa- 4. Consideration Supreme of the Court's Moreno tion majority's position of the on that same issue. requires decision some yielded care. Moreno While relying solely portions on opinions opinions-Justice two opinion Russon's lead concurred Court, a majority of the we do Justice separate opinion. Howe's The Court not in our distinguish citations between Justice unanimously portions concurred in of Justice Russon's and opinions. Justice Howe's opinion, Russon's majority and a of the Court concurred in Justice opinion. Howe's On the mother, Bart- natural Bill's in this pool swimming in a Bill named boy aof More- Because at 889-90. id. See lett. Dis School by Jordan operated owned guardians Bill's nos years Several 887. at P.2d See trict. death, wrongful perma awarded were before, Morenos behalf, "it follows then own in their Bill, albeit guardianship custody and nent file authority to hald] mother, natural Bill's rights parental id. See claim." prerequisite terminated. Bartlett, never Laura death, Bill's Following id. seek behalf, failure Despite her ing to Bartlett Supreme Court Aun. child "their" Morenos' "piggyback" (1996).5 § 7B-11-6 they filed. See the action intervene Morenos' district school When The Court id. *4 held in suit death wrongful a claim, they filed section with compliance in sufficiently was id. See court. district claim her pursue to Bartlett 63-30-11 notice: the in defect a clear sum- despite moved for {11 district The school in- loss Morenos the Morenos' the damages arguing claimed mary judgment, claim- Bartlett, legally ac- viable death wrongful the of for their maintain stead not could § 63-80- Ann. id.; Code Utah not guardians, See ant. Bill's they were tion (providing 11(8)(a)Giii)(Supp.2000) time, Bart- same At the id. See heirs. action, by the claim- assert- incurred "damages must state to intervene sought lett (emphasis known") interest. in party real far as the so ant she ing that in defect had technical However, added). Overlooking the Bartlett at 887-88. id. See that the claim, found claim-timely other- Court or the of of the notice never suffi- district her argued that the school gave district of school the wise-and surrounding the she facts the therefore all of her claim cient barred failure claim, the id. See the of intervene. nature to the not be should sought- be would damages that of at 888. amount Bartlett's noted the Court though even dis school the denied court 12 those than less well might motion, ruling that judgment trict's therefore Morenos-and by the sought action bring the could Morenos the maintenance the to "legally sufficient also The trial id. See behalf. action." wrongful death [Bartlett's] of motion, ruling intervention Bartlett's in party despite matter, the Morenos the practical a T15 As contrary, More- id. the to interest. protestations strict the loosen to undeniably served found mo Supreme Court the appeal, On in of for notices standard compliance the gave 78-11-6 section 'that However, does Moreno situations.6 certain - wrongful death a bring right to much nearly as standard loosen heirs," id. ward's of "in behalf only not standard, compliance" a "substantial of parent or to more "a states This section consistent situations, is fully injury of or certain death in least action for an may maintain many in view taken caused charitable the more injury with minor child only substan require another." neglect jurisdictions, other act by the requirements with compliance tial compli- requiring "strict See, the rule Significantly, immunity statule. state's the Gov- requirements with the ance" So.2d Birmingham, 341 City v. e.g., Brasher from come Act does ernmental Regional 1976) v. (Ala. Woodsmall Ann. itself. the act language of (en (Colo.1990) Dist., 800 P.2d Transp. Instead, (1997 Supp.2000). -38 to §§ 63-30-1 Ga. Columbus, Washington v. City banc}; ap- was first compliance" standard "strict (1975); v. Vermeer 583, 589 222 S.E.2d App. Immunity Act Governmental plied Utah's 1971); (Iowa Carr 389, 394 N.W.2d Sneller, 190 Scarborough v. Gran- Supreme Court (Miss. So.2d Shubuta, Town 480, 482 District, ite School 1999). blanket Morero shift for notices compliance" standard "strict argues Great West appeal. The Mor lack of standing a claim for damage holding eno turns on key one concept, name truck, Great West is not allowed to ly, the standing of party who files the rely on the otherwise sufficient notice of notice of Only claim. parties with standing claim, and UDOT any avoids responsibility to bring an action can file an effective notice for the property damage resulting from an Moreno, of claim. See 926 P.2d at 892. accident that allegedly its fault. Moreno holds that long so as the filing party ¶18 Aside from the niceties of prior suit, and thus had law adopting and reiterating a compli "strict file the party third ance" standard found nowhere in govern entitled to all portion or a of the same claim ing statute, if a technically piggyback deficient filing notice of party's notice of claim nonetheless does what such independent an notice is suit designed to provides do and State with the State. This is true even if the enough information does not become name the aware of third incident, claimant, as a conduct an investigation, and thus is not in compli strict and make ance with the informed statute. decision The effect about liability, Moreno is, essence, supplant State compli "strict should not quick be so to hide behind ance" standard with a cloak of "sovereign standard of "pretty immunity." That strict compliance" in multiple cases of doctrine arose when claim the monarch was rather ants with standing to antagonistic sue on the same subjects to his and wished to *5 insulate the treasury just from the claims of T16 Morris's notice of claim does not en the peasantry, who expected to compass em Great West's claim bring brace the fiction that "the King can do no Moreno's safety net because Morris wrong." We now, know better lacked and in standing mod suit, to and thus to America, ern file an effective where the claim, enjoys notice of state for damage to much more benevolent relationship the vehicle At with argument, oral its citizens both sides and has a more acknowledged realistic view of Morris was its own simply an em fallibility, ployee the enlightened of the actual truck, sovereign owner of the M should willing P Transportation, accept to responsibility and had no for neg colorable its claim ligence to recover when to the in vehicle. deficiencies Mor notice of ris therefore do actually had not prejudice no to file ability its to requisite investigate for damage merit, to evaluate its truck, and neither resolve M P it in timely & nor insurer, its fashion. Such adjust an West, Great piggyback could on Morris's no ment the philosophy underlying our tice of as he had standing State's pursue sovereign immunity must, scheme only a claim personal injury.7 however, come at the hands of the Legisla ture and not this court. 17 Although we are confident this is the correct given result controlling law, case result is admittedly somewhat troubling in CONCLUSION light of the fact that Morris's notice of claim, like the Moreno, notice of claim in 119 The fulfilled trial its court properly granted intended purpose gave "timely UDOT's motion for judgment notice" of against against Great West. Even though the stan- it so that UDOT could "conduct an investiga- dard of "strict compliance" concerning no- tion" to see if the claim Moreno, had merit. tices of claim has been softened in some 926 P.2d at Yet, because of Morris's by Moreno, cireumstances Great West could 7. The result would be different if Morris could Even as truck, driving the have shown that he had an interest might truck have if he could have shown supporting a portion claim for some of the dam- either employment that his contract with M & P age: For example, had Morris leasing been held responsible him pay truck, been joint in a venture with M & P, or truck or that him, M & P had informed after the been the accident, operator owner/ the truck, then he intended to hold respon- him would have had standing a claim and sible for damage. factor, No such additional thus could have filed an effective notice of claim. however, is in this case. present only not did party who light of of claim notice rely on Morris's not legally authorized party first damage to standing to lack of statute) bring a lawsuit (e.g., behalf truck. Moreno, P.2d party. second 1 20 Affirmed. piggy may not therefore West 892. Great avoid of claim Morris's back concur; DAVIS, Judge. Z. {21 JAMES I This notice. filing its own responsibility Judge Presiding JACKSON, mandating strict Associate law comports with (concurring): the Governmental with compliance Rush provisions. notice-of-claim Act's no relue- I have majority, 22 Unlike 36, ¶ 19, UT County, 1999 Lake v. Salt ton court, affirming the whatsoever tance Moreno, at 891. P.2d 1201; P.2d colleagues' broad- my with agree cannot Educ., v. Bd. Moreno court interpretation I conclude Accordingly, er for sum- motion correctly granted I would West. against Great mary judgment Great here question There reluctance. without affirm Thus, file a did West Morris's onto bootstrapping itself only West may Great Accordingly, Great UDOT. lawsuit case, Moreno suggests shoes Morris's into may step prop- regarding interest analogizes damage claim. erty App55 2001UT case, although in that Moreno Lynne HATCH Dean Julian filed on Morenos' Mitchell, Appellants, ruled the behalf, supreme "legally sufficient *6 action" maintenance COUNCIL; Town TOWN BOULDER Moreno, 926 mother. natural by the child's Planning and/or Commission Boulder Howe, J., opinion (separate Excavat Boulder Adjustment; Board C.J., and Dur- Stewart, Associate joined Stout; Rhea Company; Sam reasoned J.). supreme court ham, Appellees. Thompson, autho- § 78-11-6 ] "Iglince Aun. [Utah No. 20000189-CA. for the to maintain guardian a rizes ward, it follows of his wrongful death of Utah. Appeals Court authority to file has Feb. claim." prerequisite of More- interpretation [ majority's April Denied Rehearing stand seems analogy, and accepts the mo party's one proposition party who cover allowed would each not file did Nev the same has readily in Moreno holding ertheless, case. our distinguishable legal ba other statutory has had, sis, as the an action authorized Thus, West. for Great of claim not articulate did in Moreno supreme standard, rather compliance" "substantial cover party's one