H.B. 79 Governmental Immunity Amendments

What this bill does

This bill would restore government immunity from lawsuits for government entities and their employees when they respond to a disaster or potential disaster, and for first responders providing emergency medical services. It would undo a 2025 Utah Supreme Court ruling that had removed that protection for emergency response workers.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the sponsor’s presentation in committee and on the floor. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 11 yes, 0 noHouse Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to change the bill · Jan 23, 2026Who voted how
• 11 yes, 0 noHouse Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 23, 2026Who voted how
• 71 yes, 0 no, 4 absentFinal House vote · Feb 2, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 0 no, 2 absentSenate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 5, 2026Who voted how
• 28 yes, 0 no, 1 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 11, 2026Who voted how
• 25 yes, 0 no, 4 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 12, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 23, 2026 House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (40 turns)

  1. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:08:26

     It takes us to the last time on our agenda today. Um, item number seven, HB 79, Representative Gwynn. Go ahead.

  2. Rep. Matthew H. Gwynn2:08:53

     Based on some conversations I'm having, I suspect we will be adopting a substitute, so if we can get that on the system, I would appreciate it. Okay. HB 79. This is a government immunity bill, and this stems from an appellate court decision, or a, sorry, Utah Supreme Court decision, I believe. Um, Armenta versus Unified Fire, where the, the, we believe, or at least the position of those that support the bill, believe that the original district court ruling in this case was appropriate and, uh, interpreted what was done by this legislature in 1985 and 89 correctly. And in 1985, what the legislature did is they gave qualified immunity to firefighters. Now, at the time, firefighters were most likely just fighting fires, but like all public sector jobs, they have a tendency to evolve over time as society gets more complicated, right? And we, as government agencies get asked to do more things. And typically the things that we're asked to do, we evolve much quicker than addressing the consequences of what we do. So in 1985, firefighters were given qualified immunity, right? By virtue of being a firefighter in the standard performance of their duty, right? And then in 1989, that immunity expands to, uh, activities that arise out of providing emergency medical assistance, Uh, regulating, mitigating or handling hazardous material or hazardous waste and emergency evacuations. Now, this is where the problem stems, okay? So again, firefighting is evolved to emergency medical response. It's now evolved to also conducting, uh, hazardous waste or material mitigation and evacuations. So what happens in the arm case is, uh, gentleman calls 9 1 1 believes he's having a heart attack, uh, throughout the course of our heart attack. He calls 9 1 1, emergency responders respond, provide care and aid. At the time, and I don't understand or know the details, but it was determined that, um, there was no exigent need to go to the hospital right then and there, I believe he's asked to follow up with his doctor, week later is determined that he's had a heart attack. The district court provided for qualified immunity to unified fire because they were within the normal scope of their duty, and they were performing medical assistance at the time, uh, are meant to appeals to the Supreme Court or the appellate court, And makes an argument that the district court errored, because there actually is really no definition as it relates to what a medical response is in the state of Utah. And I think the assumption is, or you, and I would probably believe that when you call 9 1 1 because you're experiencing a medical problem, your intent is to have EMS show up and render medical care. Ergo, that's medical assistance. Right? And it sounds like that was the language that the district court used in finding that unified fire was in fact immune. And that's how they made their ruling. So cases appealed, and in the decision there is a bunch of opining about definitions, intent, and a bunch of, I would argue, are mental gymnastics, um, about what a medical emergency response is. But I wanna lead with the introduction of this decision. It says, uh, sought medical attention after he experienced shortness of breath and chest pain. Unified fire authority emergency medical technicians responded to the 9 1 1 call. I think we would all agree that that's an emergency medical response. The court first concluded that responding to a nine one one call and providing an emergency ambulance medical service was a government function, the activity of providing emergency medical assistance, right? The district court granted ufas motion and entered the judgment dismissing UFA from the case, which again, our position is that was wholly appropriate. Uh, later in the decision, the court acknowledged that Utah Government Immunity Act does not define emergency medical assistance. Okay? It was contended that the district court erred because ufas response to a nine one one call does not fall within the providing emergency medical assistance exception to the immunity waiver. This raises the question of statutory interpretation. The best evidence of the legislature's intent is the plain language of the statute itself, which is emergency medical assistance. It was posited the exceptions listed in subsections, blah, blah, blah, describing responses to cata trust, catastrophic disasters that admittedly have been historically been the purpose of governments. Right? When we study the activities of Utah Code subsection 60 3G dash seven dash 2 0 1 4 s list, we share arm Monte's belief that the legislature had a certain type of emergency in mind when it enacted that provision. Now, going back and listening to the testimony of the, uh, inception of the original bill, what they had in mind was responding to a medical emergency period. It was that clear. Uh, the conclusion was that the district court misinterpreted UGIA when it applied the providing emergency medical assistance exception to immunize ufas response to the 9 1 1 call. When we consider that provision in context, we agree the exception does not apply. And UFA is not immune. You have to go back and read the decision. It is amazing they get in the circular ar circular argument, it seems about the way black's law defines what an emergency is or isn't. So we went back, we listened to the original, uh, hearings, and if you listen to the hearings, it's quite clear that their intent was to cover firefighters when rendering medical aid period arises out of the activities of providing emergency medical assistance, fighting, fire handling hazards materials, or emergency evacuations. The, the decision that came out of the, out of the appeal was that it really limited government immune government immunity to EMS in those circumstances surrounding that like a natural disaster. That was never, that was never the intent of the original bill. Again, it's pretty clear, in fact, when it's debated again in 1989, and I took a note earlier, now I can't find it, they reassert That it's when providing medical care period in addition to these other functions, not when all of these other functions are included. So what this bill does is it says, look, we disagree with the appellate decision. We believe that the district court got it right. And we are going to clarify once again that what the legislature intended to do in 1985 and 1989 and say, when EMS is rendering medical care, they're qualified, or they, they may receive immunity or qualified immunity in the performance of their duty. It is not only when these other conditions exist, that's what the bill does. That concludes my presentation chair. Thank you.

  3. Unknown committee member2:17:53speaker not certain

     I've gone through the case. I am perplexed as to how we had five justices decide that someone who calls for medical emergency interpreted that The, the, I don't even know what to say. So when people ask me about the Supreme Court, I'm like, did you ever read the Armenta case when Mr. Mentos, uh, wife called? Have we heard that call? I have not heard the call itself. Why does Tanner always leave before I need him? No, I'm, I'm, uh, I don't know what to tell you. I I don't know how to explain that to people. Maybe the court would like to release a summary as to how this makes any sense at all, because the rest of us out here are wondering what to even say. So I appreciate that you brought it. This is one that we have to do. And, uh, I don't have any questions. I don't think outside. I kind of wanna hear the call now.

  4. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:19:03

     Um, are there any other questions from the committee?

  5. Unknown committee member2:19:06speaker not certain

     It's pretty simple. I don't wanna advise you to spend a lot of time reading Supreme Court decisions, but this one's fun. Yeah, I got motion sickness. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay.

  6. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:19:21

     Uh, is there anyone here from the public that'd like to speak to this one? Yeah, I would. Okay. Sure. Come on up.

  7. Terry Rooney, attorney2:19:30

     Uh, based on the tenor, I don't know that it's gonna matter, but I, I feel obligated to. Sure. I'm, I'm Terry Rooney. Yeah. I work at the law firm of Gross and Rooney. I represent George Armenta. Um, his wife called 9 1 1 because she came home and George was laying on the floor. He'd come back from the gym, he had chest pain, he had shortness of breath, and he fainted. That's what they call syncope. That makes sense. And so his wife Melissa, called 9 1 1. Uh, obviously both of them terrified at the moment. George was in his forties fit, healthy guy, didn't know what had happened. Um, so she called 9 1 1. Um, and so we brought the case, obviously on behalf of George. Um, I, I, I appreciate Representative Gwynn reading the opinion. I appreciate you reading the opinion. Unfortunately, what didn't get read was the 120 pages of briefing that was filed by lawyers on both sides of the case. Um, UFA had a, had their own lawyer, a very skilled law firm that does governmental entity work and has for many, many years a law firm I used to work with, actually. Um, and so, uh, yeah, George reached out. He was told he was having a panic attack, and he not only was having a heart attack, he had another one a week later, um, and which caused damage to his heart. Um, and so, uh, obviously, uh, when the district court dismissed his case, he was chagrin to say the least. Uh, I, I'll probably provide a little bit of background if I can, just for the committee's consideration. I appreciate the ability to speak on behalf of George. Um, my background, I think is, uh, relevant to the conversation. I've done medical malpractice cases in Utah for 35 years. Um, I'm a little bit unique in that I spent the first 30 years actually defending these cases. Um, the University of Utah was one of my clients. Uh, they are a governmental entity. Their healthcare providers do not have any immunity. Their emergency department does not have immunity. Their helicopter lifelike does not have immunity. Um, they have the protection of other things in the government Governmental Entity Act, but they don't have immunity. I also actually represented a private, uh, ambulance service that still functions in the state of Utah Gold Cross. And in the course of 30 years of doing defense work, I think I represented Gold Cross twice. I know there was some suggestion that this, this decision was going to lead to a rash of frivolous lawsuits. Um, there are not a lot of claims filed against, um, uh, ambulance services in the state of Utah. I think what's important also is the timing that Representative Gwen presented is helpful. Uh, he said this was first addressed in 1985 as it related to firefighters. Um, in 1985, ambulance services were provided in the state of Utah by private entities. In fact, gold Cross has provided ambulance service in Utah for about 50 years. Um, United Unified Fire was not even providing ambulance services in 1985 or 1989. Uh, they first took over that job in 2004, and they actually contracted that for four years to Gold Cross. And Gold Cross still provides ambulance services in the state of Utah. They cover Salt Lake City, they cover Washington County. So if you make a phone call and you're in Salt Lake City, you're gonna get Gold Cross. And if an EMS provider and paramedic or an EMT gives you epinephrine and it causes a heart attack, 'cause they gave you too much epinephrine, you have the right to, uh, seek remedy against Gold Cross. But if you are across the city line or you're outside of Washington County, and you call, and that happens, this bill is going to say you have no right to seek a remedy. And, and that exists today. Th this is a service that was historically provided by private entities, not by government entities in the state of Utah. And it's still shared in that, in that capacity, in fact, the legislature has passed statutes that say that, that the cities and counties can actually put this out to bid, and it could be done by private entities. Um, this bill would be granting, uh, immunity to the only healthcare providers in the state of Utah. There are no other healthcare providers that are allowed immunity for the actions that they take. So I appreciate the opportunity to be heard. I'm the one that argued the case. I've spent three years on it. I'd be happy to answer any questions about it.

  8. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:24:22

     Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Your name again? Terry Roo. Terry Roo? Yeah. Okay. Um, we'll go ahead and anybody else from the public here. Oh, okay. There you go, Jack. Come on up. Thank you. Okay.

  9. Jack Tidrow, Professional Firefighters of Utah2:24:56

     Uh, I'm Jack Tidrow, president of the Professional Firefighters of Utah and active duty Salt Lake City Firefighter, um, since right after the Civil War. Um, wow. You know, we had, uh, public ambulances back then. Jack, do you remember? We did. It was, it was different. They had wooden wheels. Um, but, uh, I'm here to speak in support of House Bill 79 and, and I appreciate all the comments everybody's made. Um, yeah, the Armenta case, I think is hard for everybody. Um, and when, when the Supreme Court, um, reversed, uh, on, based on the appeal, I firsthand checked with the crew that responded on Mr. Armenta to make sure they did their job, because we take it very serious. All our people, when we roll out the door, we have to bat a thousand every time. And so we all take it very seriously. We highly trained. We have to get re-certified, um, annually on all our fire and other certifications, hazmat in my case, and, um, EMS certifications of all levels every two years with constant training. So we, we take it really serious. And, uh, but we feel, um, the Supreme Court's decision to, to reverse and want to minimize our existing immunity, um, isn't, isn't fair to our people. It's my job and everybody else's job to take that weight off. Our members' backs, the ones that are out doing the work. Um, they need to, they need to focus on the job at hand when they're out on the street. And, um, we're very proud of the work they, they do. So, um, I'd appreciate any support that the committee can give, and I'm open for any questions. Thank you.

  10. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:26:51

      Thank you. Okay. How many more do we have? Okay, come on up. What are the names online?

  11. Unknown speaker2:27:07speaker not certain

      Brad And Chief Bishop online. You'll be up next.

  12. Jared Tingey, League of Cities and Towns2:27:15

      Hi, Jared Tingy with the League of Cities and Towns. And, uh, I'd like to thank the sponsor for running this bill. Uh, we obviously are affected greatly by this Supreme Court decision. And, uh, like the, uh, the individual before me, uh, it really does affect our ability to provide emergency medical services to those that, uh, really need it. And, um, and not worry about liability as they're trying to provide that medical assistance. And so we, uh, again, we thank the sponsor and, uh, urge the committee to, uh, pass it out. Thank you.

  13. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:27:58

      Thank you. Ben Armstrong. Okay. Chief Bishop and then Ben Armstrong.

  14. Brad Bishop, Chief, Payson City Police Department2:28:06

      Thanks. Thank you for, uh, giving the opportunity to speak. Thank to the bill sponsor, representative Chief Matt Gwen, um, for, for priorities and, uh, first responders. Um, as we all know, our responders accept a, a high stress, uh, role for public benefit. One of our main functions is to respond to medical emergencies. And medical emergencies require immediate action, action without hesitation. Uh, because with hesitation, uh, it places lives at risk. And our goal is to save lives, save lives, and often chaotic emergency situations. And I fear, without certain protections, our first responders may, you know, avoid necessary emergency, emergency actions in order to protect, protect themselves legally, which is not fair to the member, nor the, nor the patient they're treating. Um, I feel like it should be a common goal to let our trained first responders, who obviously act in good faith, you know, make split second decisions without fear of litiga litigation. So I moved to sponsor this le or favor this legislation on behalf of, you know, my city, which Payson City police Department, as well as the chief, as the Utah Chiefs Police Association. Okay, Thank you.

  15. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:29:19

      Ben Armstrong. Ben Armstrong.

  16. Ben Armstrong, Rural EMS Directors Association of Utah2:29:24

      Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Uh, Ben Armstrong here, again with the rural EMS Directors Association of Utah. Um, uh, we would just like to, uh, thank the sponsor, uh, for bringing this bill forward and, um, uh, provide our support, uh, for HB 79. Um, you know, in, in EMS, we operate, uh, in very little black and white. We tend to live right in the gray. Um, there's a lot of, uh, um, you know, unusual circumstances in, in which we, we work and, uh, having this, um, sort of coverage for, uh, for, um, our governmental providers, uh, is key. Um, so we would, uh, urge your, uh, favorable recommendation of House Bill 79. Thank you,

  17. Unknown committee member2:30:14speaker not certain

      Ben. Hey, I have a question for you real quick. So I'm, you know, I'm more familiar with the eastern side of Southern Utah after living through the Bears Ears stuff down there, um, that is super complicated. Would, would you explain to the committee the jurisdictional issues that you deal have to deal with when it comes to, comes to EMS and Indian Country and all that?

  18. Ben Armstrong, Rural EMS Directors Association of Utah2:30:35

      Um, I'm not sure that I'm particularly the best, uh, suited to, to answer that. Uh, we actually, uh, in the county in which I operate, uh, we actually don't have, um, any tribal land. Um, so I'm, unfortunately, I'm probably not best suited to, to answer that question. Okay.

  19. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:30:52

      Thank you, Clint, you there? Clint Smith?

  20. Clint Smith, Chief, Draper City Fire Department2:31:10

      Yes. Can you hear me? We got you. Thanks, Clint. All right. Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity, uh, to, uh, to comment on this. Uh, my name is Clint Smith. I am the Chief for Draper City Fire Department and also representing the State Fire Chiefs Association. Uh, we are very, uh, asked for support of this bill. We're very appreciative of Representative Gwynn, uh, bringing this, this issue forward. As he mentioned, you know, our members, uh, about 85% of the calls that we go on today in the fire service are medical in nature. So we spend the bulk of our time in this space, and our members are asked to respond, you know, at the request of individuals who are having some type of issue every single day. They're the ones that invite us, uh, into their homes, or we respond to the accidents where they occur. And our members go, and I am, I'm a hundred percent, um, confident that our members, they respond professionally and they respond to do the best job that they can for those patients that they are treating at the time, they use their training, their professionalism, uh, to do what is best for the patient. Every single time they are act they're trained to respond and to treat those immediate life-threatening, uh, situations. Our members are not trained, uh, to respond and to diagnose. Uh, we get them to the definitive care facility so that that diagnosis and further treatment can take place, um, at, uh, the behest of, of those trained professionals and doctors that are in those long-term facilities. There is always an avenue, and we, we hold ourselves to a very high standard. There's always the, the, uh, possibility, um, and the responsibility that if our members are treating or responding in a negligent or gross, negligent fashion, then we want, we want them to be held accountable. But I fully believe that our members are trying to do what is in the best interest of the patients every single day. If we allow a pathway, uh, for patients to really come back and try and hold our members liable after the fact for, uh, what they believe should have happened and may not have happened, uh, I believe we create a very untenable situation for our members to continue to work in. It's one where they, as mentioned, will have fear of, of liability, and I think it's going to stifle their, their ability to really just act in the moment, uh, in the best interest of the patients and to use their training and professionalism to their, to their benefit. And so, again, I, uh, urge support of HB 79 moving forward. Thank you very much.

  21. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:33:54

      Thank you. Is that it? Alyssa Wood? Alyssa Wood will be our final testimony there if you're there. Alyssa?

  22. Karen North, Utah Association for Justice2:34:02

      Hi, I am Corinne North, and I'm actually Alyssa Woods business partner law partner. Okay. She was pulled away for a personal emergency, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak. Um, I'm here on behalf of the Utah Association for Justice and Opposition of this bill. I'm a medical malpractice attorney, and I'm also married to an urgent and emergent care medical provider. So I take this bill very seriously On a personal and a professional level, the Utah Association for Justice Respects and values our EMS providers and the critical work that they perform every single day for utahns. But this bill would go too far. By granting immunity for medical malpractice EMS providers, it would effectively remove the requirements that EMS providers meet the accepted standards of care when delivering medical treatment. The standards of care exists to protect patients when the law eliminates consequences for violating the standard of care. It creates the wrong incentive, one that risks normalizing preventable mistakes rather than preventing those mistakes. Accountability is what encourages proper training and adherence to protocols and patient safety. Many members of the Utah Association for Justice have represented families who have lost loved ones, often a parent or a child due to the clear negligence of an EMS professional. These are severe cases, and in fact, one example received national attention in 2023 when there was a death of a 19-year-old woman in Murray, Utah, who was administered 16 times the appropriate dose of ketamine by an EMS provider. Again, this resulted in her death. This was a serious and preventable medical error that has cost her family greatly. Medical malpractice cases against EMS providers are already extremely rare, costly, and extremely difficult to litigate and bring. In general, they're generally only pursued in the most serious of circumstances, and they serve a critical function to improve medical care for all Utahans by exposing system failures and identifying areas where training and oversight must improve. This bill would foreclose Utah families from seeking accountability in the most devastating of cases, and removes a critical safeguard that protects patients. For this reason, we ask you to oppose this bill. Thank you.

  23. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:36:12

      Thank you. Okay. That concludes our public comment. We'll, I'll return to the Committee for discussion or action. Representative Shepherd, We need to adopt a substitute, don't we?

  24. Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:36:28

      Okay. That's correct. So I move to adopt substitute one for HB 79 government immunity amendments.

  25. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:36:35

      That's in order. Would you like to speak to it? No. Okay. Any discussion to the motion representative?

  26. Unknown committee member2:36:45speaker not certain

      Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would appreciate the substitute being adopted. What this does, there are some questions related to the, uh, retroactivity of this bill. And if we're gonna make the argument that, you know, our position is, is Emergency medical Services, was, is is just that, right? And if we go back to, uh, the original statute when it was, uh, created, it's just moving the retroactivity date back to when the statute was created in 1985. Okay? Thank you. Okay.

  27. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:37:20

      Would you like to sum Representative Shepherd?

  28. Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:37:24

      No, I go ahead and place the motion.

  29. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:37:26

      All those in favor of adopting the first substitute, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay,

  30. Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:37:34

      I move to favorly Recommend House Bill. First substitute House Bill 79 government immunity amendments.

  31. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:37:43

      The motion is to favorably recommend first substitute house bill 79. Would you like to speak to that?

  32. Unknown committee member2:37:49speaker not certain

      I think this is very necessary. We need to make sure that our first responders can respond and that what they do is in good faith, they need to be taken care of

  33. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:38:01

      You. Any discussion of the motion? Okay. Seeing none, Representative Gwynn.

  34. Rep. Matthew H. Gwynn2:38:05

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a couple comments. Um, first, I do wanna thank Mr. Rooney for being here. Um, and I apologize that I just met him today. Under these circumstances, I've got thank Representative Snyder for actually carrying the bill while I was away dealing with the family emergency. Um, so I probably wasn't articulate as I could be as it relates to going through, uh, court decisions, but I, I, I wanna I wanna mention a couple of things. And this is not specific to the Armenta case, so I wanna be clear. These are gonna be, these are gonna be generalized. Uh, a couple of things. One, that we're expanding immunity, that's, we're not expanding immunity for 40 years. We have assumed based on our statute that they do have immunity. And the district court originally agreed we're not expanding immunity. What we're clarifying is that immunity isn't so narrow and myopic as the Supreme Court decision has made it to be right. That was never the intent of the original decision. Um, it does not prevent people from still attempting to seek a remedy. It still will require an agency to argue that they should be immune in the offense. A suit is brought, it does not cover those cases of gross negligence or intentional acts, right? Those are things that, uh, are not taken off the table as a result of this. Right? Um, as it relates to operating environments, um, you know, I was on the phone, um, with some folks last night who were opposed. And, you know, I'm hearing things about, you know, medical malpractice and insurance policies and stuff like that. This is, this is huge, right? Those may be valid arguments, but they're not germane to the one that we're making. And the one that we're making is that the intent of what was done in 1985 is simply, yes, they're responding to a medical call, they're providing immediate medical assistance, they have immunity. If we want to have those discussions, we can have those discussions. I don't think they're germane to this particular bill, per se, uh, first responders, whether it BMS, whether it be law enforcement, right? They're working in environments that aren't as controlled as facilities. They're rapidly evolving. Sometimes they're violent. And if we're not gonna give them any room to make mistakes while operating in all of these conditions, that can change from call to call and can change several times during a call, and they're not allowed to make mistakes and they're working under threat of suit, it's gonna be difficult to fill those positions, and it's gonna be difficult to pay the ones that are willing to do the work. Um, I think that's all I have, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the support.

  35. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:41:08

      Thank you, representative. Now, would you like to sum Representative Shepherd?

  36. Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:41:16

      I'll waive. Okay.

  37. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:41:18

      That'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion is to pass first substitute hospital 79 out to the floor. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay, it's unanimous. Thank you, Representative. Thank you.

  38. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:41:32

      Okay. It looks like that's the end of our agenda and hallelujah. We are done. Poll 52, no, 48 minutes early. Well done class. Okay. Need one final motion though?

  39. Rep. Lee2:41:45

      Adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Non debatable.

  40. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox (presiding)2:41:47

      All in favor say aye. A. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. We are adjourned. Thank you.

• Feb 2, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (27 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)31:52

     for its consideration. Madame Reading Clerk First substitute house bill 79, governmental immunity amendments by Representative Gwynn. This bill was heard in law enforcement and criminal justice with a vote of 11 0 0 Representative Gwynn.

  2. Rep. Matthew H. Gwynn32:07

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. And good morning. HB 79 seeks to actually simplify what was simple and then overcomplicated in a recent Supreme Court decision as it relates to government immunity and emergency responders. So HB 79 Reasserts Lars, the first responders, firefighters, and EMS personnel retain government immunity in the performance of their duty to include providing emergency medical services and that the immunity is not limited to only when providing those services during a catastrophic natural disaster. So imagine you're a paramedic and you respond to a college chest pain while you're on the call. Uh, you're not finding any evidence of a heart attack. Maybe you're suspicious that something occurred, maybe you're not. You asked the patient to follow up with their doctor and unfortunately you couldn't determine anything had occurred since 1985 and then reaffirmed in 1989, a paramedic in that situation would be immune from a lawsuit that changed last year. Imagine you're doing CPR as a police officer, you're the first person on scene. You're doing CPR on a patient who's unconscious. You actually revive the patient, but you're later sued by the family for injury sustained. While in the course of performing CPR since 1985, and again, again clarified in 1989, emergency responders would be immune from lawsuits via government immunity. This has been the precedent for 40 years. In 2025, the decision or the the precedent was upended, uh, by reimagining, if you will, or reconstructing or whatever mental gymnastics you wanna play as it relates to what an emergency medical assistance or response is. In 1985, Utah code 63 10 10 was amended to extend immunity to employees responding to events that arise out of the activities or providing emergency medical assistance, firefighting handling, hazardous material or emergency evacuations. The long title specifically stated that the ACT amends government immunity to firefighters engaged in providing emergency medical services and removing hazardous material. In 1989, the list was modified to include regulating and mitigating hazardous waste, but also broke down the 1985 language into subsections. The district court that originally heard this case before it Uintah, the Supreme Court actually affirmed based on the recognized interpretation of the code, that the employees did have government immunity in that medical response. The district court reason that the conduct at the center of the complaint was exactly that Emergency medical assistance. The plaintiff disagreed, argued that the nine one one call did not fall within providing emergency medical assistance exception and actually raised the question of statutory interpretation. And the Supreme Court noted that the best evidence of the legislature's intent is the plain language of the statute itself and the plain language is emergency medical assistance. However, the Supreme Court ignored the plain language and made an argument that the legislature had a certain type of emergency in mind when it enacted the provision. And that is true, they did have a certain emergency in mind. That was EMS responding to a nine one one call and performing lifesaving measures, if you will. Uh, the Supreme Court cited two different definitions of what could constitute an emergency and argued the district court ruled by favoring one definition over the other and then argued that the legislature may have had another definition of an emergency in mind and then elaborated as to what the legislature quote could have intended. Now you go back and you listen to the testimony in 1985 and 1989, it's pretty clear we met emergency medical assistance, emergency medical response period. There are other things that could qualify or provide immunity such as responding to a hazardous materials complaint, handling hazardous materials, and yes to include responding to a catastrophic event such as a natural disaster. However, it doesn't appear that in 1985 or 1989 that the legislature anywhere indicated that a natural disaster had to be present to provide immunity. So what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, again, it just says in 1985 what we said is what we meant. The plain language is abundantly clear. It does not require a natural disaster to be present to provide government immunity to first responders and the performance of their duties. Now it's been argued that we're actually opening the door and we're extending immunity. That is absolutely not true and could not be further from the case. It does not change the way immunity has been interpreted by the courts with the exception in 2025 by the Supreme Court, the way it's been interpreted and handled over the last 40 years. So we're not extending immunity. Uh, employees can still held be liable in cases of gross negligence, intentional acts, et cetera. We're just reaffirming what the legislature intended to do in 85 and again, reassert it in 1989. And now we're gonna re re resert that here in 2026. That concludes my presentation, Mr. Speaker.

  3. Speaker (presiding)38:34

     Thank You representative Gwen. Uh, discussion, uh, to the bill Representative Acton.

  4. Rep. Cheryl K. Acton38:41

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise in support of this common sense legislation that is life affirming. And, um, I also wanted to observe that more and more of our bills, and I know I have one this year also, which addresses misinterpretations or, um, interpretation issues with the judiciary. And this seems to be one of those where we need to clarify what the intent is of the legislature. And, um, so I really support this legislation. It's also true that disasters happen every day and our first responders respond to those. Sometimes there are mass, um, a general disaster. Sometimes it's in an individual life and we don't want to, um, dissuade them from responding for any reason. I think all of us would be, um, very happy to have, um, a first responder save our lives if it came to that. And so I support this legislation and is life affirming and I urge my colleagues support. Thank you.

  5. Speaker (presiding)39:50

     Thank you Representative Acton. Further discussion to the bill Representative ch

  6. Unknown speaker39:56speaker not certain

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative Gwynn, will you yield to a question? I will, yes. Representative ch I would just like an explanation of line 3 0 8. I'm not clear on what that means, so if you could just explain it, that would be helpful. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  7. Rep. Matthew H. Gwynn40:22

     So what this, uh, what this is articulating is that what the legislature intended in 1985 and what it appears the district court had used to make their decision in their original case. We're arguing that this is the way this statute is to have been interpreted over the last 40 years. So we're making it retroactive to the date of the original inception of the statute. Thank you. Thank you Representative Sevier.

  8. Speaker (presiding)40:49

     Further discussion to the bill Representative Shepherd.

  9. Rep. Shepherd40:53

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Will the sponsor yield to a question?

  10. Speaker (presiding)40:55

      Representative Gwynn will yield to a question.

  11. Rep. Matthew H. Gwynn40:58

      I will. Yes. Representative Shepherd.

  12. Rep. Shepherd41:00

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, I'm just wondering if you could clarify whether this bill covers off-duty emergency personnels and, and first responders.

  13. Rep. Matthew H. Gwynn41:14

      So that would be case specific. Uh, first responder could be off duty, uh, and then called in. Um, what it would not do though is provide them immunity and you know, those, again, those cases of gross negligence. Uh, intentional acts, let, let me be clear, Mr. Speaker employees don't have complete total immunity, right? But what we don't want is them having to show up on a call under threat of suit. What we don't want is, uh, trying to get them to have family members or, you know, unconscious patients trying to sign liability waivers before providing service. And so as it relates to people who were off duty, right, it could be case specific. In other words, were they off duty, they received a call, they were on their way to the office and got involved in an accident. That would be very case specific. And, and I don't know if this is the question holder's point, but it would not prevent a family or someone who was injured from actually attempting to file a lawsuit and would still compel them to argue that they had government immunity at the time.

  14. Rep. Shepherd42:24

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to express support for this bill. I think it's critical that we we pass this bill today. Thank you.

  15. Speaker (presiding)42:32

      Thank you Representative Shepherd. Further discussion to the bill. Representative Ivory.

  16. Rep. Jason? Ken Ivory42:37

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to, uh, potentially a series of questions?

  17. Speaker (presiding)42:42

      Representative Gwynn will yield to a series of questions.

  18. Rep. Matthew H. Gwynn42:45

      I will, yes. Representative Ivory. Well,

  19. Rep. Ken Ivory42:47

      Mr. Speaker, I understand the policy, the rationale and I support that. I, I'm curious with a retroactive date going back to 1985, could that potentially upend lawsuits that have already happened? Could it upend lawsuits that are in progress now and what do we do with that? I don't know that I've ever seen a retroactive date going back, you know, many decades and again, support the policy. I'm just curious, how does that work in litigation that may have already settled or may already be pending, uh, prior to the enactment of this?

  20. Rep. Matthew H. Gwynn43:29

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question and the answer is, I don't actually have the answer to that. What I can tell you though is that the belief is that the district court actually got that right? Right. And then, uh, the Supreme Court changed the interpretation or what our interpretation of the intended statute was. I can tell you that there are lawsuits, or at least I know of one right now that is actually pending what this does to that lawsuit. I don't know. But what I can tell you is that the Supreme Court decision could potentially change the outcome of that lawsuit. And so if the argument is the legislature was not clear in 1985 and 1989 as it relates to government immunity, we are now making it abundantly clear. When you go back and listen to the testimony, it was clear then we're making it clear now that the legislature in 1985 intended it to be interpreted this way.

  21. Rep. Ken Ivory44:22

      Okay. Alright. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

  22. Speaker (presiding)44:25

      Thank you Representative Ivory. Further discussion to the bill Representative Snider.

  23. Rep. Casey Snider44:30

      I thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker, when, when people ask me where does my frustration come with our courts, this is ground zero. You see, because in this decision, which the Supreme Court ignored every fundamental te of judicial prudence, they have made our communities unsafe in this state. You see what now, because of a court ruling that the Supreme Court made up X nihilo to use their phrases, every time you call 9 1 1, the first responder has to now care more about whether they're going to be sued than whether you need CPR. Because of this decision, every time someone comes to your house as a firefighter to put out the flames, they're going to have to worry, should I first sign some sort of liability release before I put out this fire? Because the Supreme Court thinks that in the exercise of your duties, you are entitled to be sued. And, and, and the question is, why? Why go down this route? Why do this thing? When we read the bill, we are told by our current Supreme Court that they look to the plain language. The plain language says emergency response. There is nothing else to divine from this statute. Emergency response is not only limited to some, uh, narrow scope within a natural disaster, a dam breaking all of the other nuance that they put in their opinions. It's clear in the statute, they tell us, Mr. Speaker, in the course of reading our bills, that they go back and they listen to the floor debates. I have listened to these floor debates from 1988 and 1985, and in 88 you had Haven Barlow and Lyle Hilliard debate this policy on the floor of the Senate where they explicitly said, does this cover emergency responders in the exercise of all of their duties? And the answer is, yes. They, you could not from their exchange on the floor of the Senate come to any other conclusion than that our first responders are protected when we talk about judicial activism. Let, uh, let the public look to this case because in a five oh decision, they bent the laws of this state and hurt first responders for no other reason than to have some sort of academic exercise with Black's Law Dictionary at its core. I don't know Mr. Speaker why our Supreme Court deviated so greatly from so much credibility that it they have built up over so long. But this decision that they made, all of them agreeing is probably the worst decision I have seen in my tenure here. And it may be the worst decision in the history of the state. And the fact that it happened unanimously is why I am embarrassed for our Supreme Court colleagues. The questions on the speak speaker, the questions on the floor asked why go back to 1985? What will the issues be resolved if we do that? The answer is, and as the sponsor has indicated, because we were clear then when we passed that statute, and we are clear now, there is no deviation between what is right and what is wrong in this bill. We knew what we meant despite the Supreme Court telling me, telling all of us that we did not. Mr. Speaker, I, in my mind, this bill is about writing a judicial wrong and I would hope that my colleagues would all join in us in, in again, protecting our communities and again, ensuring that our communities are safe and again, being there for our first responders when they are there for us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  24. Speaker (presiding)48:20

      Thank you, Representative Snider. Back to your Representative Gwynn for summation.

  25. Rep. Matthew H. Gwynn48:26

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I I wanna make it clear, you know, people do have a right when they feel like they have been wronged to bring suit. This does not take that away from them. I appreciate the review that the Supreme Court does of district court cases. What is so disheartening is that the district court made their decision based on our intent and then it's totally upended by nine pages of this circular argument that they introduced to my understanding wasn't even argued in the original court case. And again, I don't use the word reassert of my own choosing in 1989, that's what they were saying about the original statute that was created in 1985. I cannot be more clear that the legislature in 1985 and 89 was more clear. And I don't know how we got here, Mr. Speaker, but here we are. Policies can be cyclic. So when this is revisited 40 years from now, someone can stand up and say in 2026, this is what they meant in 1989. This is what they meant in 1985. This is what they meant. And hopefully someone in the future will reassert our intent today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  26. Speaker (presiding)49:55

      Thank you. Representative Gwynn voting will now be open on first substitute HB 79, seeing all President having voted voting is now closed. First substitute HB one 70, or sorry, first substitute HB 79 will be sent to the Senate for further consideration, or sorry, passes this body with 71 yes votes zero no votes will be sent to the Senate for further consideration.

  27. Speaker (presiding)50:54

      Uh, representative Stevie Lisen.

• Feb 5, 2026 Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
• Feb 11, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (11 turns)

  1. Senate presiding officer48:09speaker not certain

     Village Uncircled Senator.

  2. Sen. Brady Brammer48:10

     Alright. Uh, thank you. Uh, what this does in 2025, there was a Supreme Court decision. This is one of about four decisions that there's legislation to correct what the Supreme Court did. Uh, what the Supreme Court did in this one is they said that, uh, emergency response employees of governments are no longer immune from lawsuit for anything that happens while they are responding to an emergency. This is a big deal for our firefighters, for our EMS. And so what this does is it puts the law back to what everyone believed the law to be prior to the Supreme Court, uh, issuing the decision called Armenta the Unified Fire. And this provides that a government entity and its employees are immune from suit when they are responding to a disaster or a potential disaster or if they're a first responder providing emergency medical services. And so that's the substance of the bill. It just puts spec to where we were, uh, before the Armenta decision. And I'm open to any questions on it?

  3. Senate presiding officer49:08

     Thank you for the presentation. I'm not seeing questions. I'm gonna go to you for a motion. Senator Brammer,

  4. Sen. Brady Brammer49:14

     Thank you. Uh, call the question. Thank

  5. Senate presiding officer49:16

     You. And the question is, shall first substitute House Bill 79? Be read a third time. Roll call vote.

  6. Unknown speaker49:21speaker not certain

     Senator Vickers Baldy Bwin Aye. Brammer Aye. Bus Comore Esca Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weiler Wilson Winterton Winterton President Adams Aye. First substitute house Bill 79.

  7. Senate presiding officer50:20

     Having received 28 yay votes. Zero nay votes. One being absent shall be be read A third time.

  8. Senate presiding officer50:27

     Senator Cullimore

  9. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore50:29

     President Motion to encircle First substitute House Bill 1 99. We have a motion Encircle First substitute House Bill 1 99.

  10. Senate presiding officer50:38

      Health Data Amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will it? Motion passes.

  11. Senate presiding officer50:44speaker not certain

      The bill is Uncircled Senator to the bill.

• Feb 12, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (3 turns)

  1. Senate President (presiding)1:01:32

     Say none to you for summation and a motion we'll Call the question Thank you. Question is shall first substitute House Bill 79 pass. Roll call vote.

  2. Senate clerk1:01:41

     Senator Vickers Baldry Aye. Lewin Brammer Aye. Bus Palmore Aye. As Camilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. Kwan McKay Mikel Milner Aye. Musman Owens pitcher Plum Re Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton, president Adams Aye. Aye. First substitute house Bill 79.

  3. Senate President (presiding)1:02:38

     Having received 25 yay votes, zero nay votes. Four being absent passes. This body will be signed by the President and return to the house or the signature of the speaker.