Utah’s Two-Year Deadline for Defective Product Claims

Short answer: A Utah claim under the Utah Product Liability Act must be filed within two years from when the injured person discovered, or with due diligence should have discovered, both the harm and its cause. That is half the four-year period that applies to most Utah negligence claims, and calling a product claim “negligence” does not get you the longer deadline.

Many serious crashes involve both a careless person and a product that failed. A UTV rolls and the roll cage collapses. A tire comes apart at freeway speed. An airbag does not deploy, or deploys with too much force. A battery catches fire. When that happens, there are usually two sets of claims with two different clocks, and the shorter one is the one that gets missed.

What the Statute Says

The deadline is Utah Code 78B-6-706. The whole section is one sentence:

“A civil action under this part shall be brought within two years from the time the individual who would be the claimant in the action discovered, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, both the harm and its cause.”

“This part” is the Utah Product Liability Act, Title 78B, Chapter 6, Part 7. Other sections of the Act say a product is defective only if it had a defect “at the time the product was sold by the manufacturer or other initial seller” that made it “unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer” (78B-6-703(1)), and they define “unreasonably dangerous” by what an ordinary and prudent buyer or user would expect (78B-6-702). The Act also treats a later alteration or modification of the product as “fault” for purposes of allocating fault (78B-6-705), which matters when a vehicle has aftermarket parts.

When the Two Years Start

The clock does not necessarily start on the day of the crash. It starts when you knew, or with reasonable diligence should have known, two things: that you were harmed, and what caused it. Both are required.

In many product cases, those two things arrive on the same day. If a side-by-side catches fire while you are riding it and you are burned, you know the harm and you know the machine was involved. In other cases the cause is less obvious, for example when an airbag failure is only identified after a vehicle is inspected. But the “should have discovered” language cuts against waiting. The question is what a reasonably diligent person would have learned, not what you personally happened to find out.

The safest working rule is to count two years from the date of the injury and treat any later start date as something you might have to fight about, not something to rely on.

A “Negligence” Label Does Not Buy Four Years

The Utah Supreme Court addressed the reach of the two-year statute in Utah Local Government Trust v. Wheeler Machinery Co., 2008 UT 84, filed December 12, 2008. Justice Nehring wrote for a unanimous court.

The case came out of a fire at a Hurricane City power plant. The city’s insurer sued the company that sold and set up two diesel generators, and the company argued the suit was a product liability claim filed too late. The court explained that product liability “encompasses all actions seeking money damages for injury to people or property resulting from defective products,” whether the claim is framed as negligence, strict liability, misrepresentation or breach of warranty (¶ 10). It then held that “even if ULGT’s claim were characterized as a claim for negligent manufacture of a product rather than for strict liability, the claim would still have to be brought within the product liability statute of limitations” (¶ 12).

The court also set limits on the statute. The two-year period “will only apply if a claim alleges damage from a product and if that product was defective when sold” (¶ 37). When a transaction mixes a product and a service, like equipment plus installation, courts look at the transaction’s predominant purpose to decide whether it is really about a product, and they borrow the Uniform Commercial Code’s rules to decide when the product was sold. The court sent the case back for those findings rather than deciding which deadline applied.

Two practical lessons follow. First, if your claim is that a product was defective when it left the manufacturer or seller, plan on two years no matter how the complaint is labeled. Second, a claim about something that happened after the sale, such as a bad repair or a faulty installation by a separate shop, may be a different kind of claim with a different deadline. Sorting that out early is part of the job.

The Four-Year Contrast

Most Utah injury claims against a person, such as another driver, are governed by the four-year catch-all in Utah Code 78B-2-307(4), which covers claims “for relief not otherwise provided for by law.” For the general rules and the exceptions, see our guide to the Utah personal injury statute of limitations.

Even four years can run out when a second defendant is added late. In Falkenrath v. Candela Corp., 2016 UT App 76, a woman was burned during laser hair removal. She sued the clinic within about two years, then added the laser’s manufacturer almost five years after the injury, saying she had not understood the manufacturer’s role until she received a report from her own consultant. She conceded the four-year statute applied to her negligence claim against the manufacturer, and the Court of Appeals held it had run.

The court’s reasoning is worth knowing for anyone hurt by a machine. It said “a personal injury caused by the operation of a machine will routinely entail possible liability on the part of both the operator and the manufacturer of the machine,” so that situation is not an exceptional circumstance that stops the clock. And it did not matter that she needed technical help to confirm the manufacturer was at fault, because she had enough information to put her on notice to look further. The same opinion listed 78B-6-706 among Utah’s shorter deadlines, noting it sets “a two-year statute of limitations for actions premised upon products liability.”

Why Vehicle Claims Often Carry Both Theories

A single crash can produce a negligence claim against a person and a product claim against a manufacturer or seller. Some common patterns:

• UTV and side-by-side rollovers. The driver may have taken a slope too fast, which is a negligence question. Whether the roll cage, restraints, doors or nets protected the occupants as they should have is a product question. A rental or tour outfit’s maintenance can raise a third set of issues. See our pages on UTV rollover accidents and rollover accidents generally.
• Tire failures. A tread separation can be a manufacturing or design problem, but the tire’s age, how it was stored, and whether a shop mounted or repaired it correctly all matter. Under Wheeler, a claim about the tire as sold and a claim about later service may not share a deadline.
• Airbags and restraints. The at-fault driver caused the crash, but an airbag or seatbelt that did not perform can make the injuries worse. That second claim is a product claim on the two-year clock.
• Battery and fuel fires. Fires after a crash, or with no crash at all, can point to a fuel system, wiring or battery defect. Burn injuries also tend to need long treatment, which is one reason people lose track of time. See our page on burn injuries.

We cover the car-parts side in more detail in Defective Airbags, Tires and Car Parts: Product Liability Claims in Utah, and off-road crashes in ATV and UTV Accident Claims in Utah. For how recall history can come up in these cases, see our post on Polaris RZR recalls and the CPSC penalty.

Practical Steps If a Product May Be Involved

• Write down the two-year date now. Count from the date of injury. If a later discovery date might apply, treat it as a backup argument.
• Keep the product. The vehicle, tire, battery or part is usually the most important evidence in the case. Tell your insurer in writing not to sell, salvage or crush a totaled vehicle until it has been inspected, and do not repair, strip or modify it.
• Record identifying information. Photograph the VIN or serial number, the model and year labels, the tire’s sidewall markings, and any aftermarket parts. Keep the purchase paperwork and service records.
• Check for recalls. A recall does not prove your product failed for the same reason, but it tells you where to look. Save a screenshot of any recall lookup result with the date.
• Do not wait for technical confirmation. Falkenrath shows that waiting for someone to confirm a defect can cost you the claim. Engineers and fire-origin investigators can be hired after a case is evaluated, and that work takes time.
• Identify everyone in the chain. Utah recognizes product claims against manufacturers, distributors and retailers. In Bylsma v. R.C. Willey, 2017 UT 85, the Utah Supreme Court held that retailers, like others in the chain of distribution, are strictly liable for selling a dangerously defective product.

Some claims have their own rules, including claims involving children, wrongful death, and government-owned vehicles or roads. Those are beyond this post, and they are another reason to have the deadline reviewed early.

Talk to a Utah Product Liability Attorney

If you were hurt in a crash, rollover or fire and something about the vehicle or equipment does not seem right, the two-year clock may already be running. Our Utah product liability team can review the timeline, send preservation requests, and help sort out which claims apply against which parties. For Polaris side-by-sides specifically, see our Polaris RZR accident page.

Hurt in Utah? Call (801) 921-5134 or send us your case. Free consultation. No attorney fees unless we win. Hablamos Español.