Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagestrialmotionsummary judgmentleasecorporation
lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagestrialmotionleasecorporation

Related Cases

Villanueva-Martinez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Manook, Estate of, v. Research Triangle Institute
View Case »
Weisskopf v. United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of N.Y.
View Case »
Long v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Lopez-Aldana, Matter of
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Utah Constr. & Min Co.; U.S. v.

Facts

KeyBank National Association provided financing for the construction of an athletic facility intended to be leased to Utah Baseball Academy Inc. (UBA). Disputes arose over funding and construction issues, leading Camco Construction Inc. to file a mechanic's lien and a lawsuit against API and KeyBank. The trial court eventually granted summary judgment to KeyBank on various claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, asserting that the corporate borrower could not recover on such claims.

KeyBank National Association provided financing for the construction of an athletic facility intended to be leased to Utah Baseball Academy Inc. (UBA). Disputes arose over funding and construction issues, leading Camco Construction Inc. to file a mechanic's lien and a lawsuit against API and KeyBank.

Issue

Whether a trial court properly found for a bank on a borrower's claims when the bank, which funded the construction of an athletic facility, refused to advance more funds for the project.

Whether a trial court properly found for a bank on a borrower's claims when the bank, which funded the construction of an athletic facility, refused to advance more funds for the project.

Rule

In Utah, a plaintiff is entitled to damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress only if the defendant's conduct is outrageous and intolerable, and the plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury that is not derivative of harm to a corporation.

In Utah, a plaintiff is entitled to damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress only if the defendant's conduct is outrageous and intolerable, and the plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury that is not derivative of harm to a corporation.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress could not survive because they were derivative of corporate injuries. The court found that the alleged conduct by KeyBank did not rise to the level of outrageousness required for such a claim, and thus, the trial court's grant of summary judgment was appropriate.

The court applied the rule by determining that the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress could not survive because they were derivative of corporate injuries.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the claims made by the borrower were either not actionable or derivative of corporate injuries, which could not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the claims made by the borrower were either not actionable or derivative of corporate injuries, which could not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Who won?

KeyBank National Association prevailed in the case because the court found that the claims made by the borrower were either derivative of corporate injuries or lacked sufficient grounds to be considered outrageous.

KeyBank National Association prevailed in the case because the court found that the claims made by the borrower were either derivative of corporate injuries or lacked sufficient grounds to be considered outrageous.

You must be