## Facts

- Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) partially condemned two parcels owned by Admiral Beverage Corporation as part of a project widening and elevating Interstate 15 (I‑15) and relocating a frontage road.
- The project elevated I‑15 (approximately 28 feet) and altered roadway configuration, reducing Admiral’s view to the east and diminishing the property’s visibility from I‑15.
- Admiral sought to introduce appraisal evidence valuing the remainder before and after the taking using fair-market-value methodology that accounted for factors a prudent buyer would consider, including view and commercial visibility.
- The district court excluded evidence of severance damages tied to loss of visibility, concluding such damages were unavailable because visibility was not a “recognized property right” under prior precedent.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. In a partial-taking condemnation case, may a landowner recover severance damages for a reduction in the fair market value of the remainder attributable to loss of view and commercial visibility?
2. Are severance damages limited to harms to “recognized property rights,” or do they include all valuation factors a prudent purchaser would consider in determining fair market value?

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and the district court’s evidentiary ruling and remanded.
- The court held that severance damages are measured by any reduction in the fair market value of the remaining property caused by the taking and the public improvement, subject to offsets for special benefits.
- The court ruled that severance damages are not restricted to injuries to separately “recognized property rights.”
- The court overruled prior language limiting severance damages to “recognized property rights,” concluding the limitation was inconsistent with the Utah Constitution, Utah statutes, and prior case law.
- Admiral was entitled to present valuation evidence that loss of view and visibility reduced the fair market value of the remainder.

## Legal Principles

- Just compensation is required when governmental action substantially interferes with private property in a way that destroys or materially lessens its value or substantially abridges use and enjoyment.
- The purpose of just compensation is to make the owner whole: the owner should be placed in as good a position as if the property had not been taken.
- In a partial taking, compensation includes (1) the fair market value of the property taken and (2) severance damages, defined as the reduction in market value of the remainder caused by the severance and the construction/operation of the improvement, offset by special benefits.
- Fair market value reflects all factors bearing on value that a prudent purchaser would consider, excluding value changes attributable solely to the public improvement itself.
- View and visibility are permissible valuation factors; the compensability inquiry is whether their loss causes a demonstrable market-value reduction to the remainder.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that severance damages in partial-takings cases are based on the actual reduction in fair market value of the remaining property, allowing evidence that loss of view and commercial visibility diminished the remainder’s value and rejecting a rule that confined severance damages to harms to “recognized property rights.”


Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 275 P.3d 208 (Utah 2011)