Id. ¶ 19 (emphasis added). ¶ 20 Similarly, in Gillman v. Department of Financial Institutions, 782 P.2d 506 (Utah 1989), the plaintiff brought a negligence action against the state's Department of Financial Institutions for failure to properly regulate financial bodies. We held that the department retained immunity under the Licensing Exception because the alleged injuryarose from the licensing decisions of the department, which had the statutory authority to regulate and issue licenses to financial institutions.

The determinant of immunity is the type of conduct that produces the injury, not the status of the intentional tort-feasor whose conduct is the immediate cause of the injury. Indeed, our prior cases have never recognized the distinction . . .; instead, we have always looked only at the cause of the injuries, not at the status of the injurer.Id. (citing Hilton v. Borthick, 791 P.2d 504, 505 (Utah 1989); Gillman v. Department of Fin. Insts., 782 P.2d 506, 510-12 (Utah 1989); Connell v. Tooele City, 572 P.2d 697, 698-99 (Utah 1977); Epting v. State, 546 P.2d 242, 244 (Utah 1976)). What the Ledfors court failed to note, however, was that Ledfors was in fact the first case in this state to apply section 63-30-10(1)(b) when a private individual committed the assault and battery.

In July 1980, the Department determined that Grove employees were not obeying the cease and desist order and were making inaccurate representations as to the nature of Grove's business. Grove's officers consented to the entry of a court order granting possession of Grove's business and property to the Department. Grove filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in August 1980, and jurisdiction over Grove's assets was assumed by the United States Bankruptcy Court. This case is controlled by this Court's decision in Gillman v. Department of Financial Institutions, 782 P.2d 506 (1989). There, we determined that the Department of Financial Institutions was immune from suit for any failure to properly inspect or regulate pursuant to either title 7 or title 70B.

Thus, unlike the provision of sewer services, the governmental activity in this case qualifies as a "governmental function."Madsen I, 658 P.2d at 631; accord Gillman v. Department of Fin. Insts., 782 P.2d 506 (Utah 1989). Madsen I also held that the general principle of governmental immunity did not violate article I, section 11, but the Court did not purport to define the line between governmental immunity and article I, section 11. 658 P.2d at 629.

572 P.2d at 698-99 (construing Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10(2) (1968)). Likewise, in Epting, where the deceased was killed by an escaped prisoner, we held that the state was immune from suit for its negligence in permitting the escape because the injuries either arose out of the exercise of a discretionary function and were immunized by subpart (1) of section 63-30-10 or arose out of the escapee's incarceration and were immunized by subpart (10). 546 P.2d at 244 (construing Utah Code Ann. §§ 63-30-10(1), (10) (1968)); see also Hilton, 791 P.2d 504; Gillman v. Department of Fin. Insts., 782 P.2d 506, 510-12 (Utah 1989). We applied the plain language of this subpart in Maddocks v. Salt Lake City Corp., 740 P.2d 1337 (Utah 1987), to bar a suit in which the plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully arrested by three Salt Lake City police officers, one of whom unlawfully beat him while the others negligently failed to intervene.

Under the law in effect at the time of the summary judgment hearing, this conclusion aligned with precedent on the issue of causation and the extent to which the issuance of a license or permit, and other actions flowing from issuing a permit, may be properly characterized as causing certain harm. See Moss v. Pete Suazo Utah Athletic Comm’n , 2007 UT 99, ¶¶ 14–19, 175 P.3d 1042 (explaining that the language of the permit exception is "not restricted to those decisions that constitute licensing decisions per se," and concluding that a government entity’s violation of its own rules "not directly tied to a licensing decision" was nonetheless covered by the licensing exception because the violations ultimately related to and derived from the entity’s licensing authority); Gillman v. Department of Fin. Insts. , 782 P.2d 506, 511–12 (Utah 1989) (rejecting the argument that failing to take certain steps to ensure compliance with conditions of an issued license constituted negligence distinct from any negligence arising from the ministerial act of issuing the license itself, and concluding that a government entity’s failure to subsequently "ensure that [the licensee] complied with the conditions" attached to the license arose out of a licensing decision, as "broadly defined" by the licensing exception to waiver); see also Thayer , 2012 UT 31, ¶¶ 18–20, 285 P.3d 1142 (explaining that requiring a government entity’s action to be formal and official pursuant to its official regulatory authority is "consistent with [the] case law" established by Moss and Gillman , because in those cases "the [government] entity was empowered with the regulatory authority to issue the authorization in question"). ¶ 47

Rather, it extends to approvals and similar authorizations, such as the Athletic Commission's decision to allow Rone's participation in the boxing match. ¶ 16 This interpretation is supported by our analysis in Gillman v. Department of Financial Institutions, 782 P.2d 506 (Utah 1989). In that case, two financial institutions were mismanaged and ultimately filed bankruptcy, resulting in losses to investors.

¶ 133 In their third amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted a "Fraud/Fraudulent Concealment [Claim] Against Dr. Healy" for conspiring with others to commit fraud and to fraudulently conceal Ms. Hipwell's cause of action for medical malpractice. In Jensen I, we stated that plaintiffs' fraud claim was nothing "more than or . . . different from a claim of fraudulent concealment of medical malpractice." Jensen I, 944 P.2d at 336 (citing Gillman v. Dep't of Fin. Insts., 782 P.2d 506, 509, 511-12 (Utah 1989)). Therefore, we address plaintiffs' independent fraud claim as a cause of action for fraudulent concealment.

And that was so irrespective of whether negligent government regulation of financial institutions would have been protected by governmental immunity from actions for damages in 1896. See Madsen, 658 P.2d at 631;see also Gillman v. Department of Fin. Inst., 782 P.2d 506 (Utah 1989). In short, the analysis had nothing to do with whether there was a cause of action for negligent government supervision of financial institutions in 1896.

The only damages arising out of Shelly's family's claims for fraud and constructive fraud relate to the possibility that they were prevented from discovering the facts constituting their claim for medical malpractice. While we acknowledge that there may be cases where a doctor commits fraud on a patient in a way that would not be covered by the medical malpractice act's fraudulent concealment provision, this is not such a case. Given the specific facts alleged in this case, we cannot agree that Shelly's family's fraud claim amounts to anything more than or is different from a claim of fraudulent concealment of medical malpractice.See Gillman v. Department of Fin.Inst., 782 P.2d 506, 509, 511-12 (Utah 1989) (rejecting attempts to recast claim for damages arising out of regulators' licensing decision as claim for negligence to avoid governmental immunity). Shelly's family claims that this reading of the statutes would violate their right to uniform operation of laws under article I, section 24 of the Utah Constitution.