Barbara L. Maw's Profile Image

Barbara L. Maw

Phone: 801-441-9393

Barbara Maw is of counsel with Goebel Anderson PC.  Ms. Maw is an experienced attorney, working in the areas of civil litigation, complex commercial cases, personal injury, product liability, insurance coverage, construction law, breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, insurance defense law, and healthcare law.  Barbara was also a Clerk to the Utah Supreme Court, Judicial Extern, Honorable I. Daniel Stewart (May 1982 – January 1983).

Prior to practicing law, Ms. Maw was a biochemist from 1976-1983.  She was a research assistant at both Columbia and Rockefeller Universities in New York.  She has also worked as a biochemical consultant for various private industries doing regulatory compliance and chemical evaluations.  Within the same time frame, she was employed with U.S. Steel Corporation where she established and maintained programs dealing with worker health and safety and regulatory compliance.

Education Associations Lectures / Publications Selected Rulings / Opinions
  • Golden Gate University (J.D. 1982)
  • Tulane University (Chemistry, 1975-1976)
  • Colorado State University (B.S. Biological Sciences, 1975)
  • Defense Research Institute
  • Utah Defense Lawyers Association
  • Park City Bar
  • Utah State Bar
  • Wyoming Bar
  • California Bar (inactive)
  • Park City Off Leash Task Force
  • Arthritis Foundation
  • Crohn's Association
  • Celiac Association
  • Instructor, Utah Trial Academy, 2015
  • Anderson v. Eaton Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153163. (a motion for summary granted. The 3-year Statute of Limitations for Asbestos Actions bars Plaintiff’s claims).
  • Harris v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 78 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (U.S.D.C. for Utah- Central Div. 1999). (Case remanded from federal district court to state court finding Plaintiff’s claims for damages couldn’t be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement).
  • Christiansen v. Farmers Ins. Exch.,116 P.3d 259 (UT. 2005). (Breach of express contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (bad faith). A finding of express breach not a condition precedent to filing for bad faith).
  • Speros v. Fricke, 98 P.3d 28 (UT.2004). (PIP subject to mandatory arbitration; Law of the Case Doctrine and intentional acts subject to the mandatory statutory minimums).
  • Kawamoto v. Fratto, 994 P.2d 187 (UT. 2000). (Where evidence is critical to the outcome of the case small claims court couldn’t limit evidence to proffer).
  • Nielsen v. O’Reilly, 848 P.2d 664 (UT. 1992). ( When there are two uninsured motorist coverages the “other insurance “ clause limits recovery to one).
  • State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Mastbaum, 748 P.2d 1042 (UT. 1987). ( Household exclusion clause in automobile policy is valid in excess of the statutory minimums).
  • Young v. Fire Ins. Exch., 182 P.3d 911 (UT. App. 2008). (Breach of express contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (bad faith). Insured has burden of proving coverage under policy before it shifts to insurer to prove an exclusion applies. Standard for directed verdict).
  • Valentine v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 141 P.3d 618 (UT. App. 2006). (“Regular use” exclusion in auto policy barred coverage).
  • Mecham v. Consol. Oil & Transp., 53 P.3d 479 (UT. App. 2002). (Lender’s motion for summary judgment granted in a workers compensation personal injurycase because no principal/agency relationship).
  • Utah Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 738 P.2d 652 (UT. App. 1987). (Declaratory Judgment Action interpreting “permissive use.”).
  • Bonneville Towers Management Committee v. Thompson, 728 P.2d 1017 (UT. 1986). (Condominium case. Failure to join “new owners”: as indispensable parties).

For More Information

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.