Court Opinion

ID: 9628171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:10:06.926952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:58.743494
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice
(concurring and dissenting):
I agree that Farmers has no right of subrogation.1 However, for that very reason (i. e., as a matter of law), it is my opinion that plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys’ fees. Simply stated, I deem it wholly inappropriate to compensate plaintiff for “protecting” a right of subrogation when in fact no such right existed to be protected. Farmers’ only right to reimbursement of PIP payments is through mandatory, binding arbitration,2 to which plaintiff is barred as a party.
Furthermore, the judgment having been reversed, plaintiff’s demand that Farmers and Preferred Risk be restrained from arbitrating the reimbursement issue would ap*1347pear to be revitalized. As indicated supra, it is my opinion that the arbitration is only between insurers and that plaintiff should be precluded from participating in the proceeding in any way. At the very least, a factual question exists as to whether plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief as would deprive Farmers of its statutory right to arbitration. On remand, findings should be made on this issue as well.

. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ivie, Utah, 606 P.2d 1197 (1980).

. Id., interpreting U.C.A., 1953, 31-41-11.