Court Opinion

ID: 9567175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:50:09.456227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:21.965217
License: Public Domain

Miller, J.,
concurring and dissenting: I concur with paragraph No. 5 of the syllabus and with corresponding portions of the majority opinion. Two lawsuits should not be made out of one cause of action. The claims for medical expense and loss of wages should not be severed from claims for pain and suffering, property damage, and other loss, when all claims arise out of the same occurrence. Thus an injured person who has received PIP payments from an insurance carrier, and who opts to bring suit against a third party in an attempt to recover damages, should make claim for all damages he or she has sustained, and which have a common origin. Any “duplicative” recovery is held in trust for the insurance carrier.
I respectfully disagree, however, with paragraph No. 10 of the syllabus and corresponding portions of the opinion. The effect of the court’s construction of K. S. A. 1975 Supp. 40-3113 (a) is to require an injured insured, who seeks to recover damages against a third person, to bear all of the costs of the litigation — while giving the injured person’s PIP insurance carrier total reimbursement without effort or cost. To be sure, the insurance carrier is entitled to reimbursement, but where, as here, the insured has fought the battle with the carrier’s knowledge and acquiescence, and without its help, the carrier should in all equity be required to bear a proportionate share of the expense.
The policyholder pays a premium for PIP coverage. If the policyholder sustains injury and receives PIP benefits, he or she must — under the majority’s holding — assume all of the costs and *434expenses of any litigation undertaken in order to recover against the third person who caused the loss. When premium, lawyer’s fees, and expenses of suit are deducted, the insured realizes less than would have been the case without PIP insurance. I do not so read the statute, and respectfully suggest that such a construction was not intended by the legislature and is neither required nor warranted.
Fatzer, C. J., joins in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.