Utah New Motor Vehicle Warranties Act (Utah Code § 13-20-1)

The Utah New Motor Vehicle Warranties Act is codified at Utah Code § 13-20-1 through § 13-20-8. It is the workhorse state Lemon Law statute — establishing the Rights Period, the repair-attempt presumption, the refund/replacement remedy with distinctive consumer-favorable mileage-exclusion-during-repair, and a discretionary attorney-fees provision.

Structure of the statute

Section	Subject
§ 13-20-1	Short title
§ 13-20-2	Definitions (“nonconformity” = defect substantially impairing use, market value, or safety; “consumer” includes lessees)
§ 13-20-3	Repair obligation; 1-year Rights Period
§ 13-20-4	Replacement or refund obligation
§ 13-20-5	4-attempt / 30-business-day OOS presumption + affirmative defenses + mileage-exclusion-during-repair
§ 13-20-6	Attorney fees (discretionary)
§ 13-20-7	Resale disclosure of reacquired vehicles
§ 13-20-8	Other rights and remedies

§ 13-20-3 — 1-year Rights Period “whichever earlier”

The eligibility window:

If a new motor vehicle does not conform to all applicable express warranties, and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the term of the express warranties or during the one-year period following the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to a consumer, whichever is earlier, the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer shall make repairs necessary to conform the vehicle to the express warranties.

The 1-year statutory cap controls almost universally since manufacturer express warranties (typically 36-month / 36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper) extend longer. Utah joins the short-Rights-Period tier with Tennessee, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Louisiana, Kentucky (12-mo/12K), South Carolina (12-mo/12K), and Mississippi.

§ 13-20-5 — 4-attempt / 30-business-day OOS presumption

§ 13-20-5(1) establishes the rebuttable presumption:

(a) the same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer; or (b) the vehicle is out of service to the consumer because of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more business days.

4-attempt threshold

Joins California / Kentucky / Washington / North Carolina / Arizona / Colorado / Wisconsin / Minnesota / Indiana / Maryland / Missouri / Nevada / Louisiana / Connecticut at the standard 4-attempt tier. Less consumer-favorable than 3-attempt jurisdictions (TN, MA, GA, VA, OR, SC, AR, MS).

30-business-day OOS — distinctive

Working-day counting (≈42 calendar days) is substantially more consumer-favorable than the 30-calendar-day peer-state tier (≈30 calendar days):

• 30 calendar days: CA, TX, FL, TN, PA, KY, CT, LA, NV, AR, MS — most common tier.
• 30 business days: Utah, Colorado § 42-10-103, Massachusetts § 7N½, Indiana § 24-5-13-15, Missouri § 407.560, Oregon § 646A.402, North Carolina § 20-351.5, Oklahoma § 901 — more consumer-favorable.
• 20 calendar days: Iowa § 322G.3, New Jersey § 56:12-31.
• 15 business / working days: Massachusetts, Mississippi § 63-17-159 — most consumer-favorable.

§ 13-20-5 — distinctive mileage-exclusion-during-repair

Utah’s “reasonable allowance for use” formula has a structurally consumer-favorable feature:

The consumer shall not be liable for mileage on the vehicle at the time of delivery, nor for mileage during the time the vehicle was being repaired.

This is distinctively consumer-favorable:

• Mileage at delivery excluded — standard among many states.
• Mileage during repair periods excluded — Utah-specific consumer benefit. Most peer states count all pre-first-report mileage.

For consumers with multi-week dealer visits and extended parts-wait periods, this can substantially reduce the offset.

§ 13-20-5 manufacturer-option remedy

§ 13-20-5(1) provides:

The manufacturer shall either: (a) replace the motor vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle; or (b) accept return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the consumer the full purchase price including all collateral charges, less a reasonable allowance for the consumer’s use.

The manufacturer chooses (not the consumer) — joins Oklahoma § 901(C), South Carolina § 56-28-40, Arkansas § 4-90-407, and Mississippi § 63-17-159 at the manufacturer-option tier. Distinct from CA/TX/FL/NY consumer-choice frameworks.

§ 13-20-6 discretionary attorney fees

§ 13-20-6 provides:

The court may award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party.

Discretionary character — court can grant or deny. Joins Kentucky § 367.844, Michigan § 257.1407(2), South Carolina § 56-28-50, and Mississippi § 63-17-159 at the discretionary-Lemon-Law-fees tier.

The § 13-11-19 UCSPA is a parallel theory whose fees are also discretionary (the court “may award” a fee to the prevailing party, keyed to groundless actions). See our UCSPA article. The UCSPA’s $2,000 statutory-damages floor makes it a useful parallel damages theory, but because both state-law fee provisions are discretionary, the reliable fee anchor is the federal Magnuson-Moss § 2310(d)(2) provision.

§ 13-20-7 — resale disclosure of reacquired vehicles

§ 13-20-7 requires:

• Vehicles reacquired by the manufacturer under § 13-20-5 must be labeled as Lemon Law buybacks on the title.
• Resale to subsequent purchasers requires written disclosure of the underlying nonconformity that triggered repurchase.

Violation creates additional UCSPA § 13-11-19 exposure for non-disclosure ($2,000 statutory floor applies — greater of actual damages or $2,000).

Affirmative defenses (§ 13-20-5(2))

The manufacturer can rebut the presumption by showing:

• The nonconformity does not substantially impair use, market value, or safety.
• The nonconformity is caused by abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modification.

Bottom line

Utah’s New Motor Vehicle Warranties Act provides a standard refund/replacement framework with two distinctive consumer-favorable features: the 30-business-day OOS threshold (≈42 calendar days) and the mileage-exclusion-during-repair formula. Both state-law fee provisions (§ 13-20-6 and § 13-11-19 UCSPA) are discretionary, so the federal Magnuson-Moss § 2310(d)(2) mandatory-character fees are the reliable fee anchor. The UCSPA’s $2,000 statutory-damages floor adds a useful minimum-recovery backstop for non-disclosure cases, leaving Utah’s overall consumer-protection framework solid.

Related

Article

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Federal Overlay in Utah)

The federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act — 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. — providing mandatory § 2310(d)(2) attorney fees and 4-year UCC SOL backstop for Utah vehicle-defect litigation. D. Utah federal venue.

Read → Article

Utah's 4-Attempt / 30-Business-Day OOS Presumption

The Utah Code § 13-20-5 repair-attempt presumption — 4 attempts for the same nonconformity OR 30 cumulative BUSINESS DAYS out of service, within the 1-year Rights Period.

Read → Article

Utah Lemon Law Statute of Limitations

Utah's mixed SOL framework — Lemon Law via 4-year UCC § 70A-2-725; UCSPA 2-year § 13-11-19; Magnuson-Moss borrows 4-year UCC. The 4-year UCC SOL is the load-bearing backstop for late-emerging defects.

Read → Article

Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA)

The Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (Utah Code § 13-11-1) — the $2,000 statutory-damages floor (actual damages or $2,000, whichever greater) and discretionary attorney fees under § 13-11-19, a parallel UDAP theory in Utah vehicle-defect cases.

Read →