Utah Supreme Court hears arguments over whether 1989 Condomarine limits modern UGIA damages cap

The Utah Supreme Court on oral argument Monday heard competing claims about whether the court's 1989 Condomarine decision continues to prevent application of the modern Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA) damages cap in malpractice suits involving university-affiliated caregivers.

"This appeal is about whether a single case, Condomarine v. University Hospital decided in 1989 is alone sufficient to invalidate a statute as unconstitutional," Amy Sorensen, counsel for the University of Utah, told the court, arguing Condomarine is a limited, plurality, as-applied holding that later doctrinal and statutory changes undercut its precedential weight. Sorensen pointed to the 2004 repeal and reenact of the UGIA and amendments after 2017 that index the cap to consumer and medical-cost measures as material differences.

Mark Yohallam, counsel for the Tullis family, countered that Utahns have relied on Condomarine for decades and that the case remains a workable rule of decision. "Utahns like the Tullises are entitled to rely on clear, workable rules of law that have been applied for 35 years," Yohallam said, urging the court to require a challenger to show why precedent should be abandoned.

The argument centered on two linked legal questions: whether changes in statutory text and…