Dispute resolution clauses in operating agreements tell the members of an LLC exactly how a disagreement gets decided: who talks first, who mediates, whether an arbitrator or a judge rules, which state’s law applies, and who pays. Without one, Utah’s default statutes and the district court decide for you.

Last updated: August 2026

What a Dispute Resolution Clause in an Operating Agreement Actually Does

A dispute resolution clause is the section of an LLC operating agreement that converts a fight into a procedure. It answers five questions before anyone is angry enough to argue about them: what counts as a dispute, what the members must try first, who makes the binding decision, where and under what law that happens, and who pays the cost.

That sequencing matters more than most owners expect. In a two-member Utah LLC with a 50/50 split, a deadlock over a distribution or a hire has no internal tiebreaker. If the operating agreement is silent, the only escalation path is a lawsuit, and the first real deadline in that lawsuit is often nine to fifteen months away. A well-drafted clause replaces that gap with a defined ladder that produces an answer in weeks.

Utah’s LLC statute is deliberately deferential here. Section 48-3a-112(1) provides that the operating agreement governs relations among the members as members, relations between the members and the company, the rights and duties of a manager, the activities and affairs of the company, and the means for amending the agreement itself. Subsection (2) then says that to the extent the operating agreement does not provide for a matter, the chapter governs it. Every question you leave blank is a question the legislature has already answered, and its answer may not be the one you want.

If you are still deciding whether you need the underlying document at all, start with what an LLC operating agreement is and whether you really need one, then come back to the dispute clause.

Utah Law Limits What Your Dispute Resolution Clause Can Control

Freedom of contract in an LLC agreement is broad but not unlimited. Section 48-3a-112(3) contains a list of things an operating agreement may not do, and several of them constrain dispute resolution clauses directly. Drafting past these limits does not merely fail; it invites a court to strike the clause at the worst possible moment, after both sides have spent money on it.

Section 48-3a-112(5) tells you how a court reviews a challenged term. The judge decides unconscionability and public policy as a matter of law, judged as of the time the term became part of the agreement and using only the circumstances existing then. The court may invalidate the term only if, in light of the company’s purposes and activities, it is readily apparent that either the objective of the term or the means of achieving it is unconscionable or against public policy. That is a demanding standard, and it cuts in favor of clauses that are specific, mutual, and commercially reasonable.

The Five Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Worth Naming in an Operating Agreement

Most operating agreements name one mechanism. Better agreements name two or three in sequence and define the trigger that moves from one to the next.

Naming a mechanism is not the same as making it work. A clause that says the members “shall attempt to mediate in good faith” with no deadline, no administering body, and no default appointment method is unenforceable in practice, because nobody can prove when the attempt failed.

Mediation Clauses and the Utah Uniform Mediation Act

Mediation is the cheapest rung on the ladder and the one most often drafted badly. The reason to require it is not sentiment; it is evidentiary protection. Under Utah Code 78B-10-104, a mediation communication is privileged, is not subject to discovery, and is not admissible in a proceeding, unless waived or precluded under 78B-10-105 or excepted under 78B-10-106. A mediation party may refuse to disclose a mediation communication and may prevent others from disclosing it. A mediator has the same protection, and so does a nonparty participant.

Subsection (3) supplies the necessary limit: evidence that was already admissible or discoverable does not become protected simply because someone waved it around in a mediation. You cannot launder a bad document by mentioning it to a mediator.

A workable mediation clause fixes six variables: the event that triggers the demand, the number of days to select a mediator, the fallback appointment mechanism if the members cannot agree, the location, the allocation of the mediator’s fee, and the date on which the mediation requirement is deemed satisfied whether or not anyone showed up. That last item is what lets the next rung actually start.

Arbitration Clauses Under the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act

Arbitration is the mechanism members most often choose and least often understand. Utah’s version of the uniform act is in Title 78B, Chapter 11, and it applies to any agreement to arbitrate made on or after May 6, 2002, under 78B-11-104(1).

Enforceability and who decides what

Section 78B-11-107(1) makes an agreement in a record to arbitrate an existing or future controversy valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract. Subsection (2) assigns to the court the question of whether an agreement to arbitrate exists and whether a controversy falls within it. Subsection (3) assigns to the arbitrator whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been satisfied and whether the containing contract is enforceable. Subsection (4) allows the arbitration to continue while a court sorts out a challenge, unless the court orders otherwise.

The federal counterpart, 9 U.S.C. 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, makes written arbitration provisions in contracts evidencing a transaction involving commerce valid, irrevocable, and enforceable save upon grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. The federal vacatur grounds in 9 U.S.C. 10 closely track Utah’s. Many Utah LLCs touch interstate commerce, so both statutes may be in play, and a well-drafted clause says which one the members intend to govern the arbitration procedure.

The terms you cannot waive in advance

Section 78B-11-105 is the most overlooked provision in the chapter. Before a controversy arises, a party may not waive or vary the effect of 78B-11-106(1), 78B-11-107(1), 78B-11-118(1) or (2), or Sections 78B-11-109, 78B-11-127, or 78B-11-129. Before a controversy arises, a party also may not unreasonably restrict notice of initiation under 78B-11-110, unreasonably restrict a neutral arbitrator’s disclosure duty under 78B-11-113, or waive the right to be represented by a lawyer under 78B-11-117.

Subsection (3) goes further. Nobody may ever waive or vary Sections 78B-11-108, 78B-11-115, 78B-11-119, 78B-11-123 through 78B-11-125, 78B-11-130, or Subsections 78B-11-104(1), 78B-11-121(3) and (4), and 78B-11-126(1) and (2). In plain terms, the confirmation, vacatur, and correction machinery is mandatory. A clause promising that an award is “final and not subject to any court review” is not enforceable as written.

Discovery, provisional remedies, and remedies the arbitrator can award

Section 78B-11-118 gives the arbitrator subpoena power, the ability to permit depositions, discretion to allow whatever discovery is appropriate to keep the proceeding fair, expeditious, and cost-effective, authority to compel compliance with discovery orders, and power to issue protective orders for privileged material and trade secrets. That discretion is the source of both arbitration’s speed and its unpredictability, which is why sophisticated clauses cap depositions and document requests by number rather than leaving it open.

Section 78B-11-109 preserves emergency relief. Before an arbitrator is appointed and able to act, a court may enter provisional remedies for good cause to the same extent as in a civil action. After appointment, the arbitrator may issue provisional remedies and interim awards, and a party may go to court only if the matter is urgent and the arbitrator cannot act timely or cannot give an adequate remedy. Making such a motion does not waive the right to arbitrate.

Section 78B-11-122 defines the remedial reach. An arbitrator may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief only if that relief would be authorized by law in a civil action on the same claim and the evidence justifies it, and the award must separately state the factual and legal basis and the amount. Attorney fees are available if authorized by law on the same claim or by the parties’ agreement, which is the single strongest reason to include a fee-shifting sentence in the clause itself. Subsection (3) then confirms that an arbitrator may order remedies a court could not, and that this alone is not a ground to refuse confirmation or to vacate.

How final an award really is

A Utah court must vacate an arbitration award only where it was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; there was evident partiality, corruption, or prejudicial misconduct by an arbitrator; the arbitrator refused a justified postponement, refused material evidence, or conducted the hearing contrary to Section 78B-11-116 so as to substantially prejudice a party; the arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s authority; there was no agreement to arbitrate and the objection was preserved; or the arbitration proceeded without proper notice of initiation so as to substantially prejudice a party.

Utah Code 78B-11-124(1)

Note what is absent from that list: the arbitrator got the facts wrong, misread the operating agreement, or reached a result no judge would reach. Legal error is not a vacatur ground. Section 78B-11-124(2) sets a 90-day deadline from notice of the award, extended only where the movant alleges corruption, fraud, or undue means, in which case the 90 days runs from when the ground was known or reasonably should have been known. Section 78B-11-124(4) provides that if the court denies a motion to vacate, it shall confirm the award unless a motion to modify or correct is pending.

Section 78B-11-129 lists the six orders you may appeal, including denial of a motion to compel arbitration, an order granting a stay of arbitration, an order confirming or refusing to confirm an award, and an order vacating an award without directing a rehearing. Members who want a genuine merits appeal should not be in arbitration, because the appellate rights they are imagining do not exist there.

Litigation Is the Default, and the Default Has a Price

If the operating agreement says nothing, the dispute goes to Utah district court. That path has real advantages: a jury, full discovery, injunctive relief, published law, and a genuine right of appeal. It also has costs your clause could have avoided.

Timing also matters. A breach of written contract claim in Utah carries a six-year limitations period under Utah Code 78B-2-309, and an oral contract claim carries four years under 78B-2-307. A dispute resolution clause that imposes a shorter internal deadline to demand mediation or arbitration is common, and it is one of the few places where a clause meaningfully shortens exposure. If your company is already on the receiving end of a claim, read what to do if your business gets sued in Utah before you respond to anything.

The Statutory Exits Your Clause Cannot Close

Owners often assume a broad arbitration clause captures every possible dispute. Utah’s LLC Act says otherwise in several places, and understanding those carve-outs is what separates a clause that holds from one that produces satellite litigation about the clause itself.

Judicial dissolution for oppression or impracticability

Section 48-3a-701 lists the events that dissolve an LLC. Two of them are court orders on a member’s petition. Under 48-3a-701(4), a court may dissolve where the conduct of all or substantially all of the company’s activities is unlawful, or where it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the activities in conformity with the certificate of organization and the operating agreement. Under 48-3a-701(5), a court may dissolve where the managers or the members in control have acted, are acting, or will act in a manner that is illegal or fraudulent, or in a manner that is oppressive and directly harmful to the applicant. Section 48-3a-112(3)(i) forbids the operating agreement from varying 48-3a-701(4)(a) and (5). Deadlock and freeze-out disputes therefore always have a courthouse door.

The buyout election that answers a dissolution petition

Section 48-3a-702 gives the company, or one or more members if the company does not act, the right to elect to purchase the petitioning member’s interest at fair market value in a 48-3a-701(5) proceeding. The election may be filed within 90 days after the petition is filed, or later if the court allows, and it is irrevocable unless the court finds it equitable to set aside or modify it. If the company elects, it must purchase. A thoughtfully drafted operating agreement anticipates this by fixing the valuation method in advance, which is exactly the kind of question an expert determination clause is built for. The mechanics overlap heavily with removing a partner from a business in Utah and with the pressure tactics described in can my business partner push me out.

Direct and derivative actions

Section 48-3a-801 allows a member to sue another member, a manager, or the company directly to enforce the member’s own rights, but the member must plead and prove an actual or threatened injury that is not solely the result of injury to the company. Section 48-3a-802 allows a derivative action to enforce a company right only after a demand on the other members or the managers that goes unanswered within a reasonable time, or where demand would be futile. Section 48-3a-803 requires the plaintiff to be a member when the action is commenced and either to have been a member when the conduct occurred or to have acquired that status by operation of law or under the operating agreement.

Because 48-3a-112(3)(k) bars unreasonable restrictions on Part 8 actions, a clause should route these claims into the chosen forum rather than try to bar them. Routing is permissible; elimination is not.

The special litigation committee

Section 48-3a-805 lets a company named in a derivative proceeding appoint a committee of one or more disinterested and independent individuals to investigate and decide whether the action serves the company’s best interests. On the committee’s motion, the court shall stay discovery for the time reasonably necessary, except for good cause, and the stay does not block enforcement of information rights under 48-3a-410 or a temporary restraining order on good cause. The committee may let the case continue under the plaintiff’s control, take control, settle on its own terms, or seek dismissal, and it must file its determination and report with the court. The court then decides whether the members were disinterested and independent and whether the investigation was conducted in good faith, independently, and with reasonable care, with the committee bearing the burden of proof. Section 48-3a-112(3)(l) allows the operating agreement to provide that the company may not have a special litigation committee, but it does not allow the agreement to rewrite how the committee works.

Information rights

Section 48-3a-410 governs the rights of members, managers, and dissociated members to company information. Section 48-3a-112(3)(h) permits reasonable restrictions on availability and use, including liquidated damages for breach of a use restriction, but forbids unreasonable restriction of the underlying right. In practice, most member disputes begin with a records demand, so the dispute clause and the information provision should be drafted together rather than in separate sections that contradict each other.

Twelve Drafting Decisions Every Dispute Resolution Clause Should Make

A clause that omits any of these will be argued about later. The list is the working checklist used when drafting or repairing an operating agreement.

A Working Escalation Ladder

The clause below is described in outline rather than reproduced as boilerplate, because the numbers should be tuned to the size of the company and the value of a typical dispute.

Rung one, written notice. Any member may serve a notice of dispute describing the issue, the provision of the operating agreement at stake, and the relief sought. The recipient responds in writing within a fixed number of days. This single requirement resolves a surprising share of disputes, because writing the claim down forces the claimant to identify a provision that was actually breached.

Rung two, principals meeting. Named individuals with authority to settle meet within a set window. In a manager-managed LLC, specify who attends when the manager is the adverse party.

Rung three, mediation. A single mediator, selected within a fixed number of days, with a named default appointing authority. Costs split equally. The requirement is deemed satisfied on a stated date whether or not a session occurs, which prevents a stalling member from freezing the ladder.

Rung four, expert determination for numbers only. Valuation, capital account, and accounting disputes go to a named category of expert whose determination is final for that limited question. This keeps arithmetic out of arbitration and out of court.

Rung five, binding arbitration or litigation. One forum, stated clearly, with the discovery limits, fee shifting, and confidentiality terms above, plus an express carve-out permitting either side to seek provisional relief consistent with 78B-11-109.

Drafting Mistakes That Gut the Clause

Permissive verbs. “May submit to arbitration” creates an option, not an obligation. Courts read permissive arbitration language as permissive.

Two forums in one document. An arbitration clause in the operating agreement and a jurisdiction clause in a related buy-sell or employment agreement is the most common source of threshold litigation among LLC members. Harmonize the documents when you sign them.

Promising unreviewable finality. A clause stating that the award is final and cannot be challenged in any court conflicts with the nonwaivable provisions in 78B-11-105(3), which forbid varying Sections 78B-11-123 through 78B-11-125.

Trying to eliminate fiduciary duties inside the dispute clause. Section 48-3a-112(3)(e) and (g) block it. Subsection (4) shows the permitted route: specify a method for disinterested authorization or ratification after full disclosure of material facts, identify categories of activity that do not violate the duty of loyalty, or alter the duty of care without authorizing intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law.

Ignoring dissociation and transfer. A clause that binds only current members leaves a departing member, a transferee, or an estate outside the procedure. Section 48-3a-113 and Section 48-3a-114 address who is bound, and the clause should track them.

No fee-shifting sentence. Section 78B-11-122(2) permits an arbitrator to award reasonable attorney fees and expenses if authorized by law on the same claim or by the parties’ agreement. If the agreement is silent and the underlying claim carries no fee statute, the arbitrator has no source of authority.

Citing section numbers that are about to change. This one is new for 2026 and is covered next.

The October 1, 2026 Renumbering Every Utah Operating Agreement Should Address

Senate Bill 41 of the 2026 General Session, Business Entity Technical Amendments, renumbers Title 48, Chapter 3a, the Utah Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, to Title 16, Chapter 20. The same bill renumbers the Benefit Limited Liability Company Act from Title 48, Chapter 4 to Title 16, Chapter 21, and the Decentralized Autonomous Organization Act from Title 48, Chapter 5 to Title 16, Chapter 22. The bill takes effect October 1, 2026.

The section suffixes carry over, so Section 48-3a-701 becomes Section 16-20-701, Section 48-3a-410 becomes Section 16-20-410, and so on. The substance of the dispute resolution limits discussed above is unchanged by the renumbering; only the citations move.

S.B. 41 renumbers Title 48, Chapter 3a, Utah Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, to Title 16, Chapter 20, Utah Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. This bill takes effect on October 1, 2026.

Utah S.B. 41, 2026 General Session, enrolled copy

Operating agreements that recite statute numbers should either be amended to the new citations or, better, be drafted with a savings sentence stating that references to a statutory section include any successor, renumbered, or amended provision. That single sentence makes the document survive the next renumbering as well. If you are auditing your company paperwork this year anyway, work through the legal documents checklist for small businesses in Utah at the same time.

How the Dispute Clause Interacts With the Rest of Your Documents

A dispute resolution clause is one leg of a structure. The others are the buy-sell provisions that price an exit, the transfer restrictions that control who can become a member, the deadlock breaker for evenly held companies, the indemnification and advancement terms that determine who funds the fight, and the liability shield that keeps a company dispute from becoming a personal one.

Those pieces have to agree with each other. An indemnification provision that advances fees to a manager accused of self-dealing, paired with an arbitration clause that shifts fees to the loser, can produce a result where the company funds both sides of the same case. Read the dispute clause against indemnification terms in Utah contracts before signing. Owners also underestimate how quickly a member dispute becomes a personal exposure question, which is the subject of personal liability when a Utah LLC gets sued and of piercing the corporate veil.

Entity choice shapes the analysis too. Corporations have their own default rules on shareholder claims, which is why shareholder agreements in Utah and Utah partnership agreements handle disputes differently from an LLC operating agreement. If the entity itself is still an open question, compare structures in LLC versus S corporation and review how tax status and LLC types interact.

Finally, dispute clauses matter most at the end of a company’s life. When members agree to stop rather than fight, the clause still governs the accounting and the final distributions, which is where how to dissolve an LLC picks up.

When to Rewrite an Existing Clause

Revisit the dispute resolution provisions when any of the following happens: a new member joins, ownership shifts to or away from a 50/50 split, the company adds a manager who is not a member, revenue grows enough that a typical dispute now crosses the $50,000 or $300,000 discovery tier line in Utah R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3), the company starts operating in a second state, a member dies or transfers an interest, or the company signs a related agreement with a different forum clause. Each of those events changes either who can sue, what a dispute is worth, or where it would be heard.

Rewriting is also cheaper than the alternative. An amendment to the dispute provisions of an operating agreement is a short document. The motion practice that follows an ambiguous clause is not. For a broader sense of what to ask before hiring anyone to do this work, see 25 questions to ask before hiring a business lawyer.

Statutes and Authorities Cited

Every legal proposition on this page traces to one of the primary sources below. Each link goes to the official government publisher: the Utah State Legislature for the Utah Code and session laws, the Utah State Courts for the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives for the United States Code.

Areas We Serve

We serve individuals and businesses throughout Utah, including Salt Lake City, West Valley City, Provo, West Jordan, Orem, Sandy, Ogden, St. George, Layton, South Jordan, Lehi, Millcreek, Taylorsville, Logan, Murray, Draper, Bountiful, Riverton, Herriman, Spanish Fork, Roy, Pleasant Grove, Kearns, Tooele, Cottonwood Heights, Midvale, Springville, Eagle Mountain, Cedar City, Kaysville, Clearfield, Holladay, American Fork, Syracuse, Saratoga Springs, Magna, Washington, South Salt Lake, Farmington, Clinton, North Salt Lake, Payson, North Ogden, Brigham City, Highland, Centerville, Hurricane, South Ogden, Heber, West Haven, Bluffdale, Santaquin, Smithfield, Woods Cross, Grantsville, Lindon, North Logan, West Point, Vernal, Alpine, Cedar Hills, Pleasant View, Mapleton, Stansbury Park, Washington Terrace, Riverdale, Hooper, Tremonton, Ivins, Park City, Price, Hyrum, Summit Park, Salem, Richfield, Santa Clara, Providence, South Weber, Vineyard, Ephraim, Roosevelt, Farr West, Plain City, Nibley, Enoch, Harrisville, Snyderville, Fruit Heights, Nephi, White City, West Bountiful, Sunset, Moab, Midway, Perry, Kanab, Hyde Park, Silver Summit, La Verkin, and Morgan.

Written by Jeremy Eveland, MBA, JD, a business attorney practicing in Lindon, Utah, who drafts and litigates LLC operating agreements, buy-sell terms, and member disputes.

This article is general information about Utah law as of August 2026, not legal advice. Statutes change, and the Utah Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act is renumbered effective October 1, 2026. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship.