Flowell Electric Association, Inc. v Rhodes Pump, LLC

An employee of Rhodes successfully sued Flowell for injuries from electric shock from Flowell’s high voltage lines. Flowell sued Rhode’s for indemnity under Utah Code 54-8c-4. The district court granted summary judgment to Flowell. The Court reversed and remanded. It held that the indemnity action was subject to the 3 year statute of limitations as it was based on a statute and did not accrue until judgment was entered ion the employee’s case. Thus, Flowell’s indemnity claim was timely. The Court held that the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers compensation statutes did not apply as the indemnity requirement is set out in a different statute and, just like indemnity under a contract, is independent of the worker employee relationship. The Court rejected Rhode’s constitutional arguments as 54-8c-4 does not deprive it of any cause of action or other property and being able to assert the exclusive remedy provision is not a fundamental right. The court reversed summary judgment holding that there is a genuine dispute as whether Rhodes informed Flowell that it intended to raise and lower a boom more than once while repairing a well, whether Flowell told Rhodes to contact it before raising the boom the second time and whether any violation of 54-8c-4 actually caused the employee’s injury. The Court rejected Rhodes argument that gross negligence bars indemnification as 54-8c-4 does not contain any such bar and the Court refused to add one.

Snyder v Snyder

Father filed a petition to modify the parties’ child custody order. The district court denied it ruling the parties had litigated all outstanding issues through Mother’s petition to change child support just 2 months prior to the filing of Father’s petition. The panel reversed and remanded holding eh operative order was the parties’ original custody agreement and thus the petition was properly before the district court.

Stewart v Board of Pardons and Parole

Stewart petitioned under rule of civil procedure 65B for review of the Board’s denial of his application for parole. The district court dismissed all but his due process claim as frivolous and granted summary judgment to Board on the due process claim. The panela affirmed. It held that all but the due process claims were frivolous as restitution is not debt and the judgments never expire and a challenge to the restitution was improper under rule 65B and must be raised in a post-conviction relief proceeding. It affirmed on the due process claim as board gave Stewart all but two documents several weeks before the parole hearing and Stewart chose to proceed instead of asking for a continuance.