Utah Legislature Moves to Restore EMS Immunity After Supreme Court Limits It
Utah lawmakers have advanced legislation that will restore broad immunity protection for fire and EMS personnel following an August 2025 Utah Supreme Court decision that limited immunity for routine 911 medical calls. According to reporting from KSL-TV, members of the Government Operations Interim Committee unanimously approved a bill that would reverse the Court’s interpretation and reinstate protections for first responders.
The measure’s sponsor, House Majority Leader Casey Snider, stated that the bill is intended to correct what lawmakers viewed as an “egregious” misreading of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA). The bill is written to apply retroactively to November 2021, ensuring it covers the underlying case that prompted the legislative action. Legislators expressed concern that the Court’s decision exposed fire departments and EMS agencies to litigation arising from routine medical responses.
The legislative action follows the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Armenta v. Unified Fire Authority, 2025 UT 26. In that case, Jorge Armenta sued the Unified Fire Authority (UFA) after EMTs responded to his 911 call, evaluated him, and advised that his condition appeared normal. Armenta alleged that he was later hospitalized with a massive heart attack and suffered significant cardiac damage. UFA sought dismissal under the UGIA, arguing that the Act’s exception for “providing emergency medical assistance” barred the claim. The district court agreed and dismissed the suit.
The Utah Supreme Court reversed. It held that the phrase “providing emergency medical assistance” needed to be read in context alongside the other exceptions found in Utah Code § 63G-7-201(4)(s), which include firefighting, hazardous-materials incidents, emergency evacuations, and dam failures. Here is the text of Utah Code § 63G‑7‑201(4)(s):
(4) A governmental entity, its officers, and its employees are immune from suit, and immunity is not waived, for any injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of an employee committed within the scope of employment, if the injury arises out of or in connection with, or results from: …(s) the activity of:
- providing emergency medical assistance;
- fighting fire;
- regulating, mitigating, or handling hazardous materials or hazardous wastes;
- an emergency evacuation;
- transporting or removing an injured person to a place where emergency medical assistance can be rendered or where the person can be transported by a licensed ambulance service; or
- intervening during a dam emergency.
Applying the canon noscitur a sociis, the Court concluded that the exception applies to medical assistance provided during disaster-type events, not routine 911 medical evaluations. Because Armenta’s claim arose from a standard EMS call rather than a catastrophic emergency, the Court held that UFA was not immune and remanded the case.
The bill now moving through the Utah Legislature is intended to restore and clarify broad immunity for first responders by amending the UGIA to explicitly protect EMS agencies during routine medical calls. As reported by KSL-TV, the bill states that governmental immunity applies to the provision of emergency medical services regardless of whether the underlying incident involves a major disaster. By doing so, it overrides the Supreme Court’s narrowing interpretation and re-establishes the level of immunity lawmakers believe EMS personnel previously had. The retroactive language ensures that the amendment applies to the events at issue in Armenta and similar pending cases.
