Case Name: STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Carl R. SESSIONS, Third-Party Defendant
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1969-02-11
Citations: 22 Utah 2d 183
Docket Number: No. 11350
Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Carl R. SESSIONS, Third-Party Defendant.
Judges: CROCKETT, C.J., and ELLETT, J., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 22
Pages: 183–186

Head Matter:
450 P.2d 458
STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Carl R. SESSIONS, Third-Party Defendant.
No. 11350.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Feb. 11, 1969.
W. Brent Wilcox of Hanson & Garrett, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
L. L. Summerhays of Strong & Hanni, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

Opinion:
HENRIOD, Justice.
Appeal from a summary judgment holding that a provision in an insurance policy for the subrogation of the insured's claim for medical payments against a tortfeasor-is valid and not against public policy. Affirmed with costs to respondent.
Subrogation springs from equity concluding that one having been reimbursed for a specific loss should not be entitled to a second reimbursement therefor. This principle has been accepted in the insurance field with respect to property damage, and with respect to medical costs by an impressive weight of authority. On the other hand it is generally conceded that a claim or cause of action for personal injuries arising out of tort is not assignable. Arguments are persuasive for and' against any such distinction. Nonetheless, we presently are constrained to affirm the universal rule of non-assignability of personal injury claims, but also the majority rule as to subrogation provisions contained in insurance policies with respect to medical expenses in cases such as that here.
We have been requested to determine but two points: 1) Whether the policy provision is valid and enforceable, and we say it is, and 2) Whether timely notice of subro-gation rights was given here in order to protect plaintiff's subrogation claim. The trial court said adequate notice was given and the record supports such conclusion, which we affirm.
CROCKETT, C.J., and ELLETT, J., concur.
. 19 A.L.R.3d 1055 (1968); Wilson v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. (Tenn.1966), 411 S.W.2d 699; Tenn. Farmers Mut. Insurance Co. v. Rader (Tenn.1966), 410 S.W.2d 171; Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1966), 266 N.C. 309, 145 S.E.2d 845; Mich. Med. Serv. v. Sharpe (1954), 339 Mich. 574, 64 N.W.2d 713; Nat. Un. Fire Ins. Co. v. Grimes (1967), 278 Minn. 45, 153 N.W.2d 152.
. 40 A.L.R.2d 502, II (1955).