Bodell Construction Co. v. Robbins

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court held that a settlement agreement between Bodell Construction and Jenson unambiguously operated as a mutual release limited to claims between the parties, rather than as an accord and satisfaction extinguishing claims against third parties. The court reversed summary judgment for Bank One and Mark Robbins on Bodell's third-party claims. It affirmed the exclusion of Bodell's damages expert report because the additional damages theories were disclosed after discovery, would prejudice the defendants, and lacked good cause for the late disclosure.

Holdings

1. The settlement agreement unambiguously operated as a mutual release of claims between Bodell and Jenson and did not constitute an accord and satisfaction of Bodell's claims against Bank One or Robbins.
2. The district court acted within its discretion in striking Bodell's damages expert report because Bodell failed to timely disclose the report's new damages theories, failed to show good cause, and prejudiced the defendants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the settlement agreement unambiguously constituted an accord and satisfaction that extinguished Bodell's claims against nonparty third parties.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking Bodell's damages expert report for untimely disclosure of new damages theories.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded