Get Historic Rates

Utah Medical Malpractice Insurance

  • Get a Free Quote from all Leading Carriers
  • Read the Latest 2021 Marketplace Guide
  • Review Historic Utah Malpractice Insurance Rates

Compare Rates and save 20% or more

Quotes from EVERY major carrier.

Cunningham Group is here for Utah Physicians & Medical Professionals

We are Medical Malpractice Insurance Specialists helping physicians, medical professionals and medical groups across specialties get medical malpractice coverage at cost-effective rates – as well as providing valuable tools and resources.

Founded in 1947, our experienced liability specialists will customize a policy to the specific needs of you and your practice.
Get all the physician discounts you are entitled to, including: Risk Management, Claims-free and New to Practice.
We ensure you receive Prior Acts, so you avoid purchasing separate tail malpractice coverage.
We publish historic rate data for every county in the State, in partnership with the Medical Liability Monitor – the nation’s leading independent source of Medical Liability Insurance and healthcare industry news.
Access to ALL MD, our network of Connecticut healthcare defense lawyers. Free Practice Tools, including Online Patient Satisfaction Survey System and Risk Management tools.
Experience excellent customer service with our dedicated account team.

Cunningham Group Has You Covered

On average, Cunningham Group saves Physicians and Medical Professionals 20% on their medical malpractice insurance.

2021 Utah Malpractice Insurance Marketplace Guide

Utah Med-Mal Fast Facts

  • Most Common Limits of Liability: $1 million/$3 million
  • Major Malpractice Insurers:
    • UMIA Insurance Inc.
    • Medical Protective Co.
    • Continental Insurance Co.
    • Mutual Insurance Co. of Arizona
    • Lexington Insurance Co.
  • Cost of Medical Malpractice Insurance: High
  • Pending State Legislation in 2021 that could affect your rates?: No

The Utah Malpractice Landscape

Malpractice insurance rates in Utah are high, but they have come down significantly in recent years. The state has passed many tort reforms over the years, beginning in 1976 with the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act, which was passed in response to the medical malpractice insurance crisis of the 1970s. Since then, Utah has amended and refined the Act several times.

Tort Reform in Utah

Utah’s initial reforms in 1976 helped to establish a framework to define and govern the handling of medical malpractice acts, including establishing standard of care and requirements for expert testimony. Important amendments to the act included the 1986-establishment of a $250,000 noneconomic damages cap, abolishment of joint and several liability and requirement for a pre-litigation panel hearing to screen all claims and determine merit. A 1999 amendment created an arbitration system for the state, and, from 1999 to 2003, arbitration agreements between physician and patient were becoming increasingly common within the Utah healthcare community. In 2003, the physician lobby pushed for legislation that would allow physicians to terminate their relationship with patients who would not sign away their right to a jury trial. After considerable public backlash against the proposed law, and a state supreme court case in which the court refused to enforce an arbitration agreement, the idea of mandating arbitration prior to the performance of a healthcare service was abandoned.

In 2001, the state’s noneconomic damage cap was increased to $400,000. The cap withstood a constitutional challenge in 2004, with the Utah Supreme Court finding that the damages cap did not violate the state’s separation of powers doctrine, writing “The legislature imposed this cap because it was convinced that doing so would limit malpractice insurance costs for medical professionals, thereby helping to control excessively high medical care costs and health insurance premiums paid by most citizens and assuring a continued supply of medical care to all. This was a policy choice made by the legislature, as is its duty… The damage cap represents law to be applied, not an improper usurpation of jury prerogatives. Consequently, it does not violate the separation of powers provision of the constitution.”

Further amendments were made to the act in 2010, when a ‘hard cap’ of noneconomic damages was set at $450,000 (no adjustments for inflation) and a requirement for an affidavit of merit in medical malpractice cases was instituted. Under the new amendments, in a malpractice action against a healthcare provider, the injured plaintiff may recover noneconomic losses to compensate for pain and suffering, but the total loss cannot exceed $450,000. This new hard cap removed any adjustment of the cap due to inflation. The previous cap—which included provisions for inflation adjustment—had grown since its 2001 inception from $400,000 to $480,000. Tort reform advocates argued that the hard cap would provide greater predictability, which would allow medical professional liability insurers to keep policy premiums in check.

The affidavit of merit portion of the 2010 amendments updated the pre-litigation panel process instituted in 1985. The most significant change is a requirement that a plaintiff obtain an “affidavit of merit” prior to a lawsuit being filed. This requirement applies if the pre-litigation hearing panel finds that the claim lacks merit, either for lack of breach of the standard of care or for lack of resulting damage. The affidavit of merit must consists of two affidavits: (1) the attorney must execute an affidavit stating that the attorney or claimant has consulted with and reviewed the facts of the case with a healthcare provider who has determined after review of the medical records and other relevant information “that there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of a medical liability action”; (2) the affidavit of merit must also include an affidavit signed by a healthcare provider appropriately licensed in the same specialty as the defendant. Essentially, the affidavit of merit functions as a second opinion to the pre-litigation panel’s conclusions. If the panel finds merit, the affidavit of merit is not required; however, if the panel finds the claim non-meritorious, then the claimant must produce sworn expert opinion testimony supporting the claim before filing suit.

In 2019, the Utah Supreme Court declared a portion of the state’s pre-litigation medical malpractice review panel process under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine. The reasoning behind the decision rests on two distinct constitutional provisions: the separation of powers ensconced in Article V of the Utah Constitution and the judicial power vested in Article VII. Under both articles, the DOPL was determined to be infringing on the purview of the judiciary.

“While Article V regulates and guides the apportionment of authority and function between the branches of government, the core judicial power vested in the courts by Article VIII is always retained by the judiciary — regardless of whether the party attempting to exercise a core judicial function belongs to another that the “explicit vesting of jurisdiction in the various courts of the state is an implicit prohibition against any attempt to vest such jurisdiction elsewhere,” the Justices wrote. “Additionally, the ‘[c]ore functions or powers of the various branches of government are clearly nondelegable under the Utah Constitution.’  Notably, the core judicial function of courts includes ‘the power to hear and determine controversies between adverse parties and questions in litigation.’”

Ultimately, the Utah Supreme Court struck down the 2010 portion of the law that outlined the process of a healthcare provider offering an affidavit that is then sent to DOPL. The original DOPL pre-litigation hearing process remains intact.

Does Utah have…

  • Damage Caps? Yes, noneconomic damages are capped at $450,000.
  • Patient Compensation Fund?
  • Apology Law?
  • Collateral Source Reform? Yes, the court must reduce damages by the amount of any collateral sources of payments the claimant receives, not including any amount the claimant has paid to secure the benefits.
  • Periodic Payments? Yes, any party can request it, and the courts must order it if future damages will exceed $100,000.
  • Joint Liability Reform? Yes, defendants are only responsible for their share of negligence.
  • Limits on Plaintiff Attorney’s Fees? Yes, attorney fees cannot be more than 1/3rd of total damages.

Medical Malpractice Rates in Utah


Medical malpractice rates in Utah are high, but can vary a lot depending on carrier. Physicians should be sure to get quotes from several insurers to secure the best rates.

Get Historic Rates

By combining our efforts with those of the Medical Liability Monitor – the nation’s leading independent source of Medical Liability Insurance news, as well as the political, legal and risk management issues that affect the healthcare industry – we’ve published historic rate data for every county in the Beehive State. You can view all the rates by completing the three simple steps on the left of this page. You’ll find the insights offered by this information invaluable when making your decision on your medical malpractice insurance coverage and carriers. This is only one of the many reasons that Cunningham Group Insurance has become the preferred online source for Utah physicians, healthcare professionals and medical groups looking to find the best coverage and lower their medical malpractice insurance rates.

Coverage by Utah County

Rates are constant across the 29 counties of Utah. Physicians in Utah’s more populous counties and cities (Salt Lake County, which includes Salt Lake City, is the largest, and Utah County, which includes Provo, has the second-highest in population) pay the same rates as those in Utah’s smaller cities and rural areas.

Ready to start saving on your medical malpractice insurance premiums?

Get a free, no-obligation quote from Cunningham Group and get the cost-effective coverage you need!