Opinion ID: 871144
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gamata v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Text: Wilson was decided while the appeal in Gamata v. Allstate Ins. Co., 90 Hawai#i 213, 978 P.2d 179 (App. 1999) was pending. In Gamata, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) denied continued PIP benefits based on a medical opinion that the insured’s continued complaints were not caused by the accident. See 90 Hawai#i at 215, 978 P.2d at 181. Gamata brought suit pursuant to HRS § 431:10C-31412 in district court, claiming that Allstate violated its statutory and contractual duties to provide no-fault benefits. See id. After filing his complaint, Gamata received and paid for the contested treatment despite Allstate’s denial. See 90 Hawai#i at 214, 978 P.2d at 180. The ICA vacated and remanded the district court’s ruling 12 HRS § 431:10C-314 provides, as it did in 1999: Jurisdiction. Any person may bring suit for breach of any contractual obligation assumed by an insurer under a policy of insurance containing such mandatory or optional provisions in any state court of competent jurisdiction. -8-  FOR PUBLICATION IN W EST’S HAW AII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  affirming Allstate’s denial because the court had applied an incorrect legal standard.13 90 Hawai#i at 220-22, 978 P.2d at 186-88. Due to Wilson, however, the ICA ruled that any payments made by Gamata to the provider must, “as a logical consequence, be returned to [Gamata].” 14 90 Hawai#i at 224, 978 P.2d at 190. In addition, the ICA ruled that if the provider sought reimbursement, he had to become a party plaintiff. See id.