Revised GIA Damages Cap Requires Independent Constitutional Analysis: Limited Reach of Condemarin

Introduction

This commentary examines the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in University of Utah Hospital v. Tullis (2025 UT 17), which addresses whether a 2017 amendment to the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah (“GIA”)—specifically its damages cap provision—must be treated as unconstitutional simply because an earlier version was struck down in Condemarin v. University Hospital, 775 P.2d 348 (Utah 1989). The case arises from a tragic medical-malpractice claim brought by John and Amelia Tullis on behalf of their son, P.T., who suffered severe brain damage during surgery at the University of Utah Hospital. The University sought a partial summary judgment limiting its potential liability under the 2017 GIA cap of $745,200; the district court declined, relying exclusively on the plurality holding in Condemarin. On interlocutory appeal, the Utah Supreme Court clarifies the limited precedential scope of Condemarin and reverses the district court’s refusal to apply the current statutory cap.

Summary of the Judgment

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Pohlman, the Utah Supreme Court held:

Condemarin’s holding—that certain 1970s GIA provisions capping recoveries at $100,000 were unconstitutional “as applied to University Hospital”—is a narrow, plurality‐based decision with no majority rationale beyond that limited holding.
The 2017 GIA damages cap (Utah Code § 63G-7-604(1)(a)) differs materially in amount, adjustment mechanism, and structure (a flat cap unrelated to insurance coverage, with inflation indexing), so Condemarin does not automatically render it unconstitutional.
The district court erred by treating Condemarin as controlling precedent for the 2017 cap; instead, any constitutional challenge to the current cap requires an independent analysis.
The matter is remanded for the district court to consider the University’s motion for partial summary judgment under the correct legal framework and to address the Tullises’ request for discovery on constitutional issues, if appropriate.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Condemarin v. University Hospital, 775 P.2d 348 (Utah 1989)
– A fractured decision: three‐justice plurality invalidated a $100,000 cap (1978–79 statutes) on due process and equal protection grounds “as applied to University Hospital,” but no majority adopted a single rationale.
Parks v. Utah Transit Authority, 2002 UT 55, 53 P.3d 473
– Characterized Condemarin as having “limited precedential value” due to its narrow one‐sentence holding.
DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428 (Utah 1995)
– Emphasized that separate analyses in Condemarin were not binding beyond the singular holding.
Key decisions on stare decisis and statutory interpretation:
- Lee v. Gaufin, 867 P.2d 572 (Utah 1993)
- State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1993)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Terry, 2020 UT 69, 478 P.3d 1026
- State v. Baugh, 2024 UT 33, 556 P.3d 35
- State v. Mohi, 901 P.2d 991 (Utah 1995)
- Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd., 2017 UT 54, 423 P.3d 1150
Legislative history on the GIA:
- 1983 repeal of original §§ 63-30-29 and 63-30-34
- 2004 comprehensive overhaul of the GIA (Mallory v. Brigham Young Univ., 2012 UT App 242, rev’d 2014 UT 27)

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

Identify the holding of Condemarin
– The only binding holding is that the 1978–79 caps were “unconstitutional as applied to University Hospital.” There is no majority opinion articulating a durable rationale on due process or equal protection.
Compare statutes
– The 2017 GIA cap (now $745,200 and inflation-adjusted, irrespective of insurance coverage) is materially different from the flat $100,000 cap that Condemarin invalidated. Absent a controlling rationale, stare decisis does not extend automatically to a distinct statutory scheme.
Apply doctrine of stare decisis correctly
– Precedent binds only to the extent of its holding and the rationale adopted by a majority. Here, Condemarin lacks a single majority rationale that can be applied to the amended statute, so its one-sentence holding about the old cap does not void the new cap.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies that:

Amendments to statutes—even if changes appear incremental—must undergo their own constitutional analysis. A prior invalidation does not automatically carry forward.
Parties challenging the GIA damages cap must marshal new arguments and evidence under the current statutory scheme rather than rely solely on Condemarin.
Courts should carefully assess the precedential value of fractured or plurality decisions before treating them as controlling law.
Future interlocutory appeals and summary‐judgment motions on governmental immunity caps will require district courts to evaluate constitutional challenges on the merits if the statutory text has changed materially.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plurality vs. Majority Opinion: A plurality opinion is one joined by fewer than a majority of justices. Only the parts agreed upon by a majority (the holding) are binding; the separate rationales are persuasive at best.
Stare Decisis: The principle that courts follow prior decisions. It binds courts to earlier holdings and rationales adopted by a majority—not to every sentence or footnote in a prior opinion.
Interlocutory Review: A special appeal of a district court’s ruling before a final judgment, permitted when the issue is controlling and likely to recur or substantially affect the case.
Partial Summary Judgment: A court order that resolves a discrete issue (here, the applicability of a statutory damages cap) before trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact.

Conclusion

University of Utah Hospital v. Tullis underscores that a statutory amendment can break the chain of precedential effect unless the same rationale remains intact and agreed upon by a majority of the court. The decision:

Reaffirms the limited reach of plurality decisions such as Condemarin when no majority rationale is available.
Emphasizes the necessity of fresh constitutional analysis for materially revised statutory provisions.
Guides parties and courts to focus on the current text and structure of the GIA rather than rely on outdated precedents.

On remand, the district court must reassess the University’s motion under the correct legal framework and determine whether discovery is warranted on the constitutionality of the 2017 damages cap. This ruling strengthens predictability in governmental immunity disputes and ensures that each statutory iteration is evaluated on its own merits.