Case Overview Tidwell v. Jensen, No. 20231081-CA (Utah Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2026)
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in favor of defendants Blake Jensen and Michael Toscano, remanding the case for a new trial on plaintiff Richard Tidwell’s claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA). The appellate court held that Tidwell presented sufficient evidence to survive JMOL on all three claims, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him as the non-moving party.
Parties:
– Appellant/Plaintiff: Richard Tidwell (buyer of the vehicle).
– Appellees/Defendants: Blake Jensen (owner of B. Jensen Auto Sales) and Michael Toscano (Jensen’s agent and salesperson).
Key Facts:
In May 2017, Toscano, acting for B. Jensen Auto Sales, purchased a 2004 Toyota Tacoma at the Manheim Auto Auction. The auction’s Electronic Condition Report (ECR), bill of sale, yellow auction light, and verbal announcement all disclosed the condition “ALT SUSPENSION/STRUCTURAL.” The National Auto Auction Association’s Arbitration Policy required sellers to disclose permanent structural damage or corrosion affecting structural components, and buyers to inspect vehicles and review disclosures before bidding. Jensen and Toscano were aware of these policies and disclosures but did not arbitrate the purchase.
In June 2017, Tidwell visited the dealership to buy the Tacoma. He repeatedly asked Toscano about the frame’s condition. Toscano represented that the frame was “fine,” that the auction had applied a rubberized coating for “extra rust protection,” that the unsprayed portion Tidwell could see was representative of the entire frame, and that the truck had “passed inspection.” Toscano discouraged Tidwell from obtaining an independent inspection (calling it a waste of $50) and from taking a test drive that day. Jensen, present during part of the discussion, told Tidwell the truck would “climb walls” and be great for mountain hunting. Tidwell purchased the truck for $11,000 on June 24, 2017.
The sale documents included:
1. A Buyer’s Guide (produced during signing) marked “AS IS—NO WARRANTY,” stating that the dealer assumes no responsibility for repairs regardless of oral statements and advising that spoken promises are difficult to enforce.
2. A Motor Vehicle Contract of Sale disclaiming all express and implied warranties (except any current manufacturer’s warranty) and stating that the Buyer’s Guide overrides contrary contract provisions.
Weeks after purchase, Tidwell noticed the truck wobbling and drifting on the freeway. A state-certified safety inspector determined the frame was severely rusted (“cancered out”), unsafe, and at risk of breaking. Tidwell attempted to return the vehicle and recover his money, but Toscano refused, saying the money was “long gone” and suggesting Tidwell resell it. Tidwell then sued.
Procedural History:
Tidwell asserted claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and UCSPA violations. After Tidwell presented his case at a three-day jury trial, defendants moved for JMOL on all claims. The district court granted the motion, ruling:
- Insufficient evidence of reasonable reliance on any misrepresentations (due to the “AS IS” Buyer’s Guide and warranty disclaimers).
- No compensable damages on fraud/negligent misrepresentation claims.
- UCSPA claim failed because Tidwell did not prove defendants knew or intended their representations about the Tacoma to be false.
Tidwell appealed.
Issues on Appeal and Holding:
- Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation: Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Tidwell reasonably relied on defendants’ oral representations about the frame’s condition, despite the “AS IS” sale and warranty disclaimers. Holding: Yes. The court held that the disclaimers did not automatically preclude reasonable reliance as a matter of law. Tidwell’s evidence—including his repeated inquiries, Toscano’s specific assurances about the frame, discouragement of inspection, and the timing and context of the sale—created a jury question on reasonable reliance and damages.
- UCSPA Claim: Whether the UCSPA requires proof that the defendant knew or intended the representation to be false, or only that the defendant knowingly made the representation. Holding: The latter. The court concluded that the UCSPA does not require scienter (knowledge of falsity or intent to deceive) for a deceptive act or practice; it is enough that the defendant intended to make the representation itself. Tidwell’s evidence that Toscano and Jensen made affirmative statements about the frame’s condition was sufficient to survive JMOL.
Result:
The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of JMOL in its entirety and remanded for a new trial, finding that Tidwell presented sufficient evidence on each claim when viewed in the light most favorable to him. The opinion was authored by Judge John D. Luthy, with Judges Ryan D. Tenney and Amy J. Oliver concurring.