Short answer: In RMB v. Celotto, the Utah Supreme Court held that a bar sued under Utah’s dram shop law cannot use the law’s contribution provision to recover money from the drunk driver when the bar chose to settle. The statute allows contribution only by a party “against whom an award is made,” and a voluntary settlement is not an award.
That sounds like a fight between a bar and a driver, and it is. But it happened inside an injured person’s case, and it says something about how the pieces of a drunk-driving claim fit together in Utah. Here is what the court decided and what it leaves open.
The Case in Plain Terms
The decision is RMB, Inc. v. Celotto, 2026 UT 19, filed July 23, 2026. Associate Chief Justice Pohlman wrote for a unanimous five-justice panel.
Corbin Celotto was in a crash with another driver. That driver sued Celotto, alleging he was intoxicated, speeding and on the wrong side of the road. The injured driver also sued five bars, claiming they had overserved Celotto before the crash.
The case then moved in stages:
- Two bars were dismissed on summary judgment because the trial court found no evidence that either had served Celotto while he was intoxicated.
- The injured driver settled with Celotto, and those claims were dismissed.
- The remaining three bars settled with the injured driver for a combined $1 million, and his claims against them were dismissed too.
That should have been the end. Instead, two of the settling bars, RMB, Inc. and Shaman, Inc., filed crossclaims against Celotto. They wanted him to pay them back for part of what they had paid, based on his share of the fault.
What the Statute Says
Utah’s dram shop law is formally called the Alcoholic Product Liability Act. Its contribution rule is in Utah Code 32B-15-302. It says a person “against whom an award is made under this chapter” may bring a separate action for contribution against “any person causing the injury and damage.” The amount is limited to the share of damages matching that person’s percentage of fault.
The same section protects the injured person. A contribution action “may not diminish the amount of recovery” the injured person was awarded and received, whether that recovery came under the dram shop law or in a separate claim.
The bars argued that the money they paid in settlement counted as an “award.” The trial court disagreed, and so did the Utah Court of Appeals in RMB Inc. v. Celotto, 2024 UT App 188.
What the Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court affirmed. It acknowledged that courts, including itself, sometimes loosely call a settlement payment a “settlement award,” so the word read alone might be unclear. But read in context, the court said, the statute is not ambiguous: “a settlement is not an award made against a party.”
The court adopted the Court of Appeals’ description of an award as “a ‘thing’ being imposed on someone by someone with the authority to do so.” A judgment after trial fits. A payment a bar agrees to make in exchange for a dismissal does not. The bars argued they settled only because the law was against them, but the court noted they did not claim the settlement amount itself was imposed on them.
The court rejected two other arguments:
- Common law contribution. The bars said the Act borrowed older common law contribution principles. The court found they never identified which principles, or showed that their version had been recognized in Utah.
- Policy. At oral argument, the bars said most dram shop cases settle, so the legislature could not have meant to limit contribution to cases that end in a judgment. The court said the argument came too late, and would have failed anyway. Because the Act imposes what the court has called “a form of strict liability,” a legislator “reasonably could have intended to allow for contribution only where an award is forced upon a party and not where a party voluntarily settles a claim.”
Why Dram Shop Claims Have Their Own Contribution Rule
In most Utah injury cases, fault is split by percentage, each defendant pays only its own share, and “a defendant is not entitled to contribution from any other person” (Utah Code 78B-5-820).
Dram shop claims are different. Utah Code 32B-15-301 makes a claim under the Act exempt from the comparative fault sections, 78B-5-817 through 78B-5-823. That is why the Act carries its own contribution provision, and why its exact words mattered here. After RMB, that provision is available to a bar only when an award has been made against it.
What This Means for an Injured Person
The ruling does not change the rights of the person who was hurt. In this case, the injured driver had already settled with Celotto and the remaining bars, so the contribution fight did not affect his recovery. A few practical points follow from the decision and the statute:
- The claim against the driver stands on its own. The Act says nothing in it prevents a claim or additional recovery against the person who caused the injury, and a claim against the driver that is not brought under the Act is not subject to the Act’s damage cap (32B-15-301(4)).
- Contribution cannot shrink your recovery. Whatever a bar and a driver fight about afterward, 32B-15-302(3) says it may not reduce what the injured person was awarded and received.
- Settlement decisions look different to a bar now. A bar that settles gives up the statutory right to seek contribution from the driver. A bar that goes to judgment keeps it. That may affect how bars and their insurers weigh a settlement offer, and it is one more reason to understand every party’s position before negotiating.
- The dram shop limits still apply. Recovery under the Act is capped at $1,000,000 per person and $2,000,000 per occurrence for claims arising after January 1, 2010, and the lawsuit must be filed within two years after the injury (32B-15-301(2) and (3)).
For the basics of when a bar is liable at all, see our overview of Utah’s dram shop law. The two-year limit is shorter than the general rule for injury claims, which we cover in the Utah personal injury statute of limitations.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The opinion is narrow. It interprets one phrase in 32B-15-302(1)(a) and applies it to a voluntary settlement. It does not address claims that arise outside the Act. And because the bars never identified the common law principles they relied on, the court did not decide what, if any, common law contribution rule might exist in this setting. On the policy argument, the court said only that it was raised too late and that the bars had not shown no rational legislator could have written the statute this way.
The legislature can change the wording of the contribution provision if it disagrees. As of our review of the current Utah Code, section 32B-15-302 has not been amended since it was enacted in 2010.
Talk to a Utah Drunk Driving Injury Attorney
A crash caused by a drunk driver can involve the driver’s insurer, one or more bars, and your own coverage, each with its own rules and deadlines. Sorting out who owes what, and in what order to resolve it, is part of building the claim. For more on how these cases are valued, see our guide to drunk driving accident settlements.
Hurt in Utah? Call (801) 921-5134 or send us your case for a free consultation. No attorney fees unless we win. Hablamos Español.