Summary
The Utah Court of Appeals reverses a judgment as a matter of law dismissing Richard Tidwell's fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act claims arising from the sale of a rust-damaged Toyota Tacoma. The court holds that the contract's warranty disclaimers did not preclude, as a matter of law, a finding that Tidwell reasonably relied on the sellers' representations. It also concludes that the UCSPA does not require proof that the defendants knew their representations were false, and remands for a new trial.
Court
Court of Appeals of Utah
Jurisdiction
Utah Court of Appeals
Decision date
January 29, 2026
Docket number
20231081-CA
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Questions Presented
- Whether the truck's as-is and warranty-disclaimer provisions precluded, as a matter of law, Tidwell's reasonable reliance on alleged misrepresentations concerning the truck.
- Whether the contract clearly and unequivocally disclaimed Tidwell's tort damages.
- Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims and thereby preclude judgment as a matter of law.
- Whether the 2017 Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act required proof that the suppliers knew or intended that their representations were false.
- Whether Tidwell was entitled to attorney fees on appeal under the contract and Utah's reciprocal-fees statute.
Holdings
- The contract did not preclude, as a matter of law, a jury finding that Tidwell reasonably relied on Jensen's and Toscano's representations about the Tacoma.
- Tidwell did not disclaim his ability to seek tort damages because neither the contract nor the incorporated Buyer's Guide clearly and unequivocally limited tort liability or tort damages.
- Tidwell presented competent evidence from which a jury could find the elements of fraud and negligent misrepresentation, so judgment as a matter of law on those claims was improper.
- The 2017 version of Utah Code section 13-11-4(2) required the supplier to make the indication knowingly or intentionally, but did not require proof that the supplier knew or intended the indicated characteristic, use, or benefit was false.
- Tidwell was not entitled to attorney fees on appeal under the contract because his claims were distinct from and not based on enforcement of the contract.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…