Wing also appears to make an independent argument that Civil Rule 82 should be extended to all parties that receive monetary awards in UM insurance arbitration. Wing cites no authority for the proposition that Rule 82 should apply to arbitration proceedings, except the extension of the statute-based Harrington argument addressed above. The arbitration panel proceeded to consider the issue of expert fees. The arbitration panel therefore correctly determined the scope of its authority in conformity with a controlling statute. The Collateral Source Rule Does Not Apply Under the Facts of This Case.
Wing is wrong.
No legal or logical basis exists to allow Wing to double recover under both the medical and UM portions of her insurance policy. Accordingly, we reject Wing's collateral source argument. E. Wing Was Not Prejudiced by the Superior Court's Consideration of the Arbitrator's Affidavit. The affidavit was submitted by the third, neutral arbitrator after consultation with the other two members of the panel. It was a clarification of the arbitration panel's final decision, and the rationale for it.