This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

A false-arrest lawsuit filed by a former Miss Utah and her business partner — which was dismissed and then reinstated — has been tossed out again.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled that Elizabeth Craig, who was Miss Utah in 1991-1992, and her business partner, Brady Harper, filed their suit against Provo too late, under the Governmental Immunity Act. The two claimed the city's police officers arrested them on bogus theft allegations.

The 4-1 decision, which was released Saturday, rejected an argument that the state's savings statute gave Craig and Brady more time to file their suit. The majority interpreted the Utah Governmental Immunity Act as "speaking comprehensively to the timing of a suit against a governmental entity" and, therefore, foreclosing the application of the savings statute.

Justice Christine Durham dissented, saying "comprehensive" does not mean "exclusive" and the Immunity Act does not negate the savings statute's application.

Craig, Harper and Scott Lazerson were arrested by Provo police officers in January 2010 on allegations they stole from Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. Charged with theft, the three were accused of acquiring personal-care products that had been set aside for the Provo company's employees and selling them outside the Nu Skin network. The trio said Nu Skin employees had donated excess product to them for the benefit of a charity.

The charges against them were eventually dismissed. Craig and Harper, who claimed Provo had caused them to lose income and damaged their reputations, submitted a notice of claim to the city before suing, as required by the Immunity Act.

According to court records, the notice was served Feb. 16, 2011, and deemed denied on April 17, 2011. A supplemental notice of claim also was served, on March 1, 2011, and deemed denied on April 30, 2011.

The lawsuit was filed in 4th District Court on April 13, 2012, which was timely because it was within one year of the denial. However, the suit was filed without a required $300 bond and was dismissed on March 27, 2013.

Craig and Harper filed a second suit on June 19, 2013, this time with the bond. Lawyers for Provo filed a motion to have the suit dismissed because it was filed after the one-year limit.

Lawyers for Craig and Harper argued against dismissal based on a provision in the savings Statute that provides one chance to bring a second suit if the initial one is dismissed for any reason other than on the merits after the statute of limitations has lapsed. The statute says the second suit must commence within one year of the dismissal.

Fourth District Judge Steven Hansen ruled the savings statute does not apply to claims against governmental parties and threw out the suit. The case then went to the Utah Court of Appeals, which ruled last year the statute does apply and reinstated the suit.

Provo appealed, leading to the Supreme Court reversal of the appeals court ruling.

Twitter: @PamelaMansonSLC