Opinion ID: 2602159
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Indemnity Agreement and Modification and Extension Agreement

Text: ¶ 52 Holmes also contends that Cook and Cook Development are liable to Holmes under both an indemnity agreement and a modification and extension agreement. However, Holmes lacks standing to sue Cook and Cook Development under these contractual provisions. ¶ 53 Generally, unless a plaintiff can recover on a contract as a third-party beneficiary or an assignee, only parties to a contract can bring suit under the contract. See SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs., Inc., 2001 UT 54, ¶ 10, 28 P.3d 669; Harper v. Great Salt Lake Council, Inc., 1999 UT 34, ¶ 20, 976 P.2d 1213; M.H. Walker Realty Co. v. Am. Sur. Co., 60 Utah 435, 450, 211 P. 998, 1004 (1922). Holmes was not specifically a party to either the indemnity agreement or the modification and extension agreement. Holmes Ventures, LC, not Holmes Development, LLC, [6] was the party to both of these agreements. Assuming Cook and Cook Development were liable under the indemnity agreement and the modification and extension agreement, Holmes would not be able to sue to recover. See Utah Code Ann. § 48-2c-110(1) (Supp.2001) (providing that limited liability company can institute . . . any action . . . in its own name (emphasis added)). Therefore, Holmes cannot pursue these claims against Cook or Cook Development.