Opinion ID: 2602251
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: applicability of american towers

Text: ¶ 11 The trial court relied heavily on American Towers in entering summary judgment for defendants on the Hermansens' claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, applying the economic loss doctrine to bar these claims. 930 P.2d 1182, 1184 (Utah 1996). The plaintiff in American Towers sought damages for losses incurred as a result of alleged faulty design and construction in the plumbing and electrical systems of a large condominium complex. Id. The plaintiff, however, was not a direct party to any of the construction contracts with defendants and . . . there was no express language in the contracts establishing an intent to confer a special benefit on the [plaintiff]. Id. at 1187. Thus the success of the plaintiff's action in that case was dependent upon whether it was an intended third-party beneficiary. ¶ 12 As we noted in Oxendine v. Overturf, the predominant inquiry in any third-party beneficiary case is whether the contracting parties clearly intended the third party to receive a separate and distinct benefit from the contract. 1999 UT 4, ¶ 14, 973 P.2d 417 (citing Am. Towers, 930 P.2d at 1188). In the present case, we are not faced with a third-party beneficiary scenario. Rather, the two remaining parties to this suit, the Hermansens and the real estate broker and his agent, dealt directly with one another. Therefore, the issue becomes whether any duties or contractual relationship existed, the breach of which would entitle the Hermansens to a remedy.