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

Heading: Dacanay v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Text: In Dacanay v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 108 Hawai#i 393, 396, 120 P.3d 1128, 1131 (App. 2005), Dacanay initiated proceedings with the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to HRS § 431:10C-212, after Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Liberty Mutual) refused to pay several claims for PIP benefits submitted by providers who had treated him after an automobile accident. Liberty Mutual then reached settlement with the providers. See 108 Hawai#i at 395, 120 P.3d at 1130. When Dacanay requested attorney’s fees and costs, however, Liberty Mutual asserted, in light of Wilson and Gamata, that Dacanay was not a real party in interest and was therefore not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs. See 108 Hawai#i at 396, 120 P.3d at 1131. 13 The district court had affirmed Allstate’s denial on the basis that it considered the treatment “palliative” rather than “curative,” not “whether the expenses were appropriate, reasonable, and necessarily incurred.” Gamata, 90 Hawai#i at 220-22, 978 P.2d at 186-88. 14 The ICA also cited to this court’s statement in Gov’t Emp. Ins. Co. v. Hyman, 90 Hawai#i 1, 7, 975 P.2d 211, 217 (1999) that “the insured has a right to receive treatment of injuries, [while] the provider has a right to receive payment for treatment rendered.” (Brackets in original.) -9-  FOR PUBLICATION IN W EST’S HAW AII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  The ICA declined to address the real party in interest issue, deeming its resolution unnecessary. See 108 Hawai#i at 399, 120 P.3d at 1134. Based on its review of the record, the ICA concluded that Liberty Mutual had waived any objections to Dacanay’s status as a real party in interest.15 See id. The ICA stated in dicta, however, that unlike Wilson and Gamata, which involved lawsuits filed in district court, Dacanay stemmed from an administrative proceeding, and thus, DCRCP Rule 17 did not appear applicable.16 See id.