Utah’s Exclusive Remedy Rule

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Utah, workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive remedy for work-related injuries or occupational diseases. Utah Code § 34A-2-105.

This means that the employee cannot sue the employer in tort (where the employee likely would be able to obtain far greater monetary damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury. The rule also bars most tort lawsuits against coworkers and supervisors. The rule applies to both physical and mental injuries.

Note: The rule only applies to injured employees who were acting in the course and scope of employment. It does not apply to independent contractors or employees who were injured when they were not working.

INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION

If an employer intentionally causes the injury, the exclusive remedy rule does not apply. The employer is thus exposed to personal injury lawsuits. 

As in most states, Utah workers will have difficulty meeting this exception. Courts interpret it very narrowly.

To show this exception applies, the employee has to prove that:

1. The employer intended the harm; or 
2. The employer was virtually certain that the employee's injury would occur.

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE EXCEPTION

This exception involves the rare situation where the employer occupies a separate role unrelated to employment. An example is a product manufacturer whose defective product injures the employee. Ohio courts rarely apply this exception.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE

If the employer fails to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the employee may:

• Sue the employer in tort; or
• Seek workers’ compensation coverage.

“THIRD PARTY” LAWSUITS

Employees can still sue third parties (e.g., equipment manufacturers, contractors) whose negligence caused or contributed to their injury. 

APPLICATION OF RULE TO STAFFING AGENCIES

When the injured employee has been assigned by a staffing agency to work for another employee/client, the exclusive remedy rule applies to the staffing agency if the agency has secured workers’ compensation coverage for its employees.

RECENT CASES

Overstreet v. United Parcel Services, No. 2:24-cv-00478-TC-DBP (D. Utah 01/10/25)

A UPS driver said the company caused him emotional distress by requiring him to return to work immediately after being held at gunpoint during his delivery route. He sued UPS for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Because the alleged negligence occurred within the scope of his employment, the exclusive remedy rule barred the claim. As to the intentional infliction claim, the intent exception to the rule did not apply here. To bypass the rule, the employee had to show that the employer had a specific intent to injure him. Instead, the employee merely said his manager told him to finish his route because they were "slammed." The court saw this as a business decision, not a deliberate attempt to cause him harm.

Tingey v. Midwest Office, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00145-TC  (D. Utah 12/12/23)

An account manager for an office furniture dealership claimed she was drugged and raped by a co-worker during a business trip. She sued the company for negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court said the first claim was barred by the exclusive remedy rule because it relied on proving the injury occurred on the job through lack of care. Such an injury would be covered by workers’ compensation and thus the employee's own only remedy would be workers’ compensation benefits. As to the intentional infliction claim, the court allowed it to proceed. It noted that the rule does not apply if the employer "intended or directed the act" that caused the distress. Here, the employee claimed supervisors intentionally forced her into proximity with her attacker to cause her pain. That was enough to allow the claim to go forward for now. The court refused to dismiss it.

Looking to better know exclusive remedy rules in your jurisdiction? Head to Simply Research.

Share This Article: