Greyhound Lines v. Utah Transit Authority
Greyhound Lines v. Utah Transit Authority, 2020 UT App 144 (Harris, J.)
Contract
Greyhound entered into a lease agreement with UTA, where UTA agreed to take responsibility for snow removal and Greyhound agreed to purchase an insurance policy. A passenger slipped on a snow-covered stair, and Greyhound paid damages to the passenger and sued UTA for breach of the lease by not removing the snow. UTA counterclaimed, arguing that Greyhound had not purchased the insurance policy required under the lease agreement. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district court subsequently entered three orders, with the final one being appealed. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding:
- The district court’s first and second orders did not completely resolve the claims in the case. Thus, it was the court’s third order that completely resolved UTA’s counterclaim, and Greyhound’s notice of appeal from that order was timely.
- The district court improperly granted summary judgment on UTA’s claim that Greyhound failed to procure the proper insurance under the lease agreement, because the undisputed facts show that Greyhound purchased an insurance policy that satisfied the terms of the agreement.
- The district court improperly granted summary judgment on Greyhound’s claim that UTA failed to remove snow. The court improperly believed that the snow removal and insurance issues were inextricably intertwined, and each claim needed to be considered on its merits.
- Greyhound is not entitled to an award of damages for UTA’s breach of contract that includes the money paid to the patron who fell on the snow-covered stair, because that money is considered an insurance deductible that Greyhound was responsible for paying. However, Greyhound is entitled to recover nominal damages from UTA for UTA’s breach.