Court Opinion

ID: 9562509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:30:27.863372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:22.950235
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Chief Justice
(concurring with comments):
I concur on the basis that the recently decided case of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ivie1 is now to be recognized as the law of this state. However, inasmuch as that case made a change in our law,21 think it appropriate to make some further observations.
In cases such as this, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the two classes of claims: first, the personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, which are paid to the claimant (the person who suffers injuries) by his own insurer, regardless of fault. Second, there is the possible tort claim against the alleged wrongdoer, backed up by his insurer. If it appears that the wrongdoer “is or would be legally liable” to the claimant, then the wrongdoer’s insurer must reimburse the claimant’s insurer for its PIP payments it has made, this to be done under the procedure provided in Section 31-41-11, U.C.A.1953; and this PIP payment is not to be considered as part of any settlement between the claimant and the wrongdoer or his insurer. (Unless the parties clearly understand and agree otherwise.) ■
It is important that parties involved in such situations be aware of these rights and obligations, as now adjudicated, under the No-Fault Insurance Act. This, in order to prevent double recovery, and double payment for the same loss, and incidentally, to avoid increased costs of insurance coverage, in frustration of the very purpose of that act.
HALL, J., concurs in the views expressed in the concurring opinion of CROCKETT, C. J.

. Utah, 606 P.2d 1197 (1980).

. See dissenting opinions in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ivie, supra, note 1.