Courts & Liability

A Defense for Permitted Conduct

H.B. 330 lets a person being sued point to a permit, license, law or order that authorized what caused the harm. The House passed it with an exception for negligent, reckless or deceptive conduct. The Senate took that exception out.

Sources: le.utah.gov Method: Public records only, no comment requested

Start Here — the 60-second version

New to this story? Click to open a plain-language walkthrough.

1
H.B. 330 (2026), “Liability Limitations Amendments,” primary sponsor Rep. Colin W. Jack, Senate sponsor Sen. Ronald M. Winterton.
2
It creates an affirmative defense in a civil case when the conduct, omission or condition that caused the harm was authorized or required by a statute, ordinance, rule, “a permit, license, or order,” or another government instrument in effect at the time.
3
As signed, the defense fails only if the plaintiff proves the government entity itself has determined the person materially broke the terms, went beyond them, or got the authorization by fraud.
4
The version the House passed also let a plaintiff defeat the defense by showing harm caused by “negligent, reckless, fraudulent, or deceptive conduct in obtaining or carrying out the authorized activity.” The Senate removed that.
5
Signed by Gov. Cox March 18, 2026, after the House accepted the Senate version 50–15.

Quick glossary — click a term

Affirmative defense

A defense the person being sued raises and must prove, which can defeat the claim even if the harm happened.

Abrogates the common law

Replaces court-made rules where they conflict with the new statute.

Products liability

Lawsuits over defective products. H.B. 330 does not apply to them.

Permits and licenses cover a wide range of activity, from construction and drilling to discharges and business operations. H.B. 330 makes that paperwork a shield in court, and the Senate version narrowed the ways around it.

How It Changed, Version by Version

Introduced: the defense would not apply if a person failed to comply with or exceeded the authorization, or caused harm through a defective product.
First substitute (adopted on the House floor Feb. 10; passed 65–0): added exceptions when the plaintiff proves the issuing government entity determined noncompliance or overreach, and when the harm “was proximately caused by negligent, reckless, fraudulent, or deceptive conduct in obtaining or carrying out the authorized activity … including a failure to disclose known material risks.” Said lawful authorization “is not a defense” to such harm.
Second substitute (adopted in Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee Feb. 17): removes the negligent/reckless/deceptive-conduct exception. Keeps government-determined noncompliance or overreach and adds fraud in obtaining the authorization. Replaces “is not a defense” language with a line that the bill does not reduce the duty of reasonable care. Shortens the product exclusion to “a products liability action.”

Graded on the Five Questions

Scale: C means the record meets what the law requires; B or A goes beyond it; D means the key part is vague or a public check is weakened; F means required information is missing or a public check is removed with nothing in its place.

Question	Grade	Why
Power	D	Adds a defense for permitted activity and, in the Senate version, removes the exception for negligent or reckless carrying-out, weakening a court check.
Transparency	C	Each change was made by recorded committee or floor action.
Financial accountability	D	Shifts the cost of harm from permitted activity toward the injured person unless an agency has already found a violation.
Environmental impact	D	The defense covers harm from any permitted activity, which includes environmental permits; the negligent-conduct exception that would have applied was removed.
Community impact	D	People harmed must rely on the permitting agency having made its own finding; they cannot win by showing negligent or reckless conduct alone.
Overall	D	Openly passed, but the Senate removed the main exception that protected people harmed by careless permitted activity.

What would have scored higher for the collective: keeping the House-passed exception for negligent, reckless or deceptive conduct, so a permit could not shield careless carrying-out of the permitted activity.

Vote Record

Feb. 2: House Judiciary Committee, 7–0 (four absent).
Feb. 10: first substitute adopted by voice vote; House passed 65–0.
Feb. 17: Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee substituted the second substitute 3–0 and recommended it 4–0.
Feb. 19: Senate second reading 20–5. Feb. 25: Senate final passage 17–7 (no: Blouin, Escamilla, Kwan, McKell, Pitcher, Plumb, Riebe).
Feb. 26: House concurred 50–15. March 18: signed by Gov. Cox.

Still Open

Not yet read: the enrolled text itself (the status page shows no change after the second substitute), committee minutes and testimony, and the by-name concurrence roll call.