must have exclusive jurisdiction, not merely limited jurisdiction, over the claims alleged to be barred. Compare Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26 cmt. c(1), with id. § 24 cmt. g. ¶ 33 A district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a legal claim unless adjudicative authority for that claim is specifically delegated to an administrative agency. District courts have general jurisdiction, which provides them with broad adjudicative authority. Utah Code Ann. § 78A-5-101 and -102 (2008). Only in instances where the legislature grants exclusive jurisdiction to an administrative agency, or otherwise explicitly restricts the courts' jurisdiction, does the district court lack subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Beaver County v. Qwest, Inc., 2001 UT 81, ¶¶ 10-11, 31 P.3d 1147 (<HOLDING>). For example, the Workers' Compensation Act
holding that the legislature granted exclusive authority over ratemaking to the public service commission holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction holding that the commission exercises substantial discretion in selecting the appropriate ratemaking methodology and this is especially true where as here the issues involve complex factual determinations peculiarly within the expertise of the commission recognizing the fundamental objective in utility ratemaking  that customers who benefit from a service should bear the costs of providing that service quotation marks omitted holding that the texas legislature limited jurisdiction to the public utilities commission for disputes about rates operations and services of an electric utility by stating that the commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over these issues citing tex utilcode  32001 west 2007