Case Name: Flora KESLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sherman Brimley TATE et al., Defendants and Respondents, and Transnational Insurance Company, Intervenor and Appellant
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1972-10-31
Citations: 28 Utah 2d 355
Docket Number: No. 12806
Parties: Flora KESLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sherman Brimley TATE et al., Defendants and Respondents, and Transnational Insurance Company, Intervenor and Appellant.
Judges: Ellett, J., dissented and filed opinion.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 28
Pages: 355–358

Head Matter:
502 P.2d 565
Flora KESLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sherman Brimley TATE et al., Defendants and Respondents, and Transnational Insurance Company, Intervenor and Appellant.
No. 12806.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Oct. 31, 1972.
Ellett, J., dissented and filed opinion.
Crockett, J., concurred in the dissent and filed additional observations.
Kipp & Christian, D. Gary Christian, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Joel M. Allred, Salt Lake City, for Flora Kesler, plaintiff and respondent. ■
Greg R. Hawkins, Salt Lake City, for Sherman Brimley Tate et al., defendants and respondents.

Opinion:
HENRIOD, Justice:
Appeal from the denial of a motion by Transnational to intervene as a defendant allegedly to protect its rights in an action brought by Kesler, its insured, against defendants, alleged uninsured motorist tort-feasors, — where both plaintiff and defendants resisted the motion. Affirmed with costs to plaintiff and defendants.
The only substantial factual difference between this case and our recent case of Christensen v. Peterson, so far as pertinent to the issue here, is that there the plaintiff attempted to join its carrier as defendant while here the carrier attempted to join itself as such. No point is made in the brief on appeal as to any reason for a different conclusion based on such distinction, we can see no such reason therefor, and consequently we conclude that the Christensen case is dispositive here, recognizing that there may be some division in the authorities.
CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, J., concur.
. 25 Utah 2d 411, 483 P.2d 447 (1971).
. It is significant that practically all of the authorities cited by the appellant either are from one state, in which case it appears that they were not Supreme Court decisions of that state, or other authorities which similarly are intermedi ate, but not supreme court decisions, and we prefer to adhere to our own decision, whieh the appellant has not chosen to mention or discuss in its brief.