The Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion in *Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Weston* (Utah 2025), resolving a complex insurance coverage dispute that has been ongoing for two decades following an automobile accident. The case involved multiple insurance carriers and cross-petitions between the parties.
The case, designated as 2025 UT 42 and numbered 20240024, was heard by the court on March 3, 2025, and filed on Oct. 17, 2025. The litigation reached Utah's highest court on certiorari review from the Utah Court of Appeals, with the underlying case originating in the Third District Court of Salt Lake County under Judge Royal I. Hansen.
The parties in the case included Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. as both respondent and cross-petitioner, Jared H. Weston as respondent and cross-petitioner, and Farmers Insurance Exchange, Prematic Service Corp., and Wilson Green Insurance Agency Inc. as petitioners and cross-respondents.
Justice Hagen authored the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice Durrant, Associate Chief Justice Pearce, Justice Petersen, and Justice Pohlman, indicating a unanimous decision from the five-justice panel.
The case attracted significant attention from the insurance industry, with multiple amicus curiae briefs filed in support of the petitioners and cross-respondents. Prime Insurance Company filed an amicus brief, represented by attorneys S. Spencer Brown, Axel Trumbo, and Scarlet R. Smith from Salt Lake City. The Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association and American Property Casualty Insurance Association also filed joint amicus briefs, represented by attorney Joshua Sohn from New York.
The legal representation included Trent J. Waddoups from Salt Lake City representing Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., and Daniel F. Bertch, also from Salt Lake City, representing Jared H. Weston. The other insurance companies were represented by Troy L. Booher and Beth E. Kennedy from Salt Lake City for Farmers Insurance Exchange and Wilson Green Insurance Agency, and Stuart H. Schultz from Salt Lake City for Prematic Service Corporation.
According to the court's introduction, the appeal stems from two decades of litigation following an automobile accident, though the specific details of the underlying accident and the nature of the coverage disputes are not detailed in the available portions of the opinion. The extended timeline suggests the case involved complex legal and factual issues that required resolution through multiple levels of Utah's court system.
The case appears to involve questions of insurance coverage obligations and responsibilities among multiple carriers, a common source of litigation in cases where multiple insurance policies may provide coverage for a single incident. Such disputes often arise when there are questions about which insurer has primary coverage responsibility and which may have secondary or excess coverage obligations.
The involvement of multiple insurance companies as both petitioners and cross-respondents, along with the participation of industry associations as amicus curiae, suggests the case addressed issues of broader significance to the insurance industry beyond the specific parties involved.
The Supreme Court of Utah's decision to grant certiorari review indicates the case presented questions of statewide importance or involved legal principles that required clarification by the state's highest court. The court typically reserves its limited docket for cases that will have broad application or that resolve conflicting interpretations of law.
The case's progression through Utah's court system, from district court through the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, reflects the complexity of the legal issues involved and the significance of the questions presented.
The opinion is noted as being "subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter," which is standard language indicating the decision may undergo minor editorial changes before appearing in the official reporter system.
The extended litigation timeline and multiple parties involved suggest this case will likely serve as an important precedent for future insurance coverage disputes in Utah. The decision may clarify standards for determining coverage obligations when multiple insurers are involved and could affect how similar disputes are resolved going forward.
The participation of national insurance industry organizations as amicus curiae indicates the decision's potential impact extends beyond Utah's borders and may influence insurance coverage litigation in other jurisdictions.
While the specific holdings and reasoning of the court are not detailed in the available portions of the opinion, the case's structure and the parties involved suggest it addresses fundamental questions about insurance coverage allocation and carrier responsibilities that are central to modern insurance practice.