Court Opinion

ID: 9791172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:07:04.691393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.595597
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice
(dissenting):
I do not agree that the insurance contracts in question are either contrary to statute or public policy.
Nowhere in the Utah statutory scheme is motor vehicle liability or uninsured motorist insurance mandated.1 What is mandated is that an insurer may not issue a policy of motor vehicle liability insurance without a provision therein for uninsured motorist coverage.2 However, the statute affords the insured the right to reject the latter coverage.3
The obvious legislative purpose and intent that emerges from the foregoing statutory provisions is to compel insurers to make uninsured motorist coverage available to their insureds, but not to compel its purchase. The insured is left free to contract for or reject the additional coverage as he sees fit.
In the instant case, the insureds exercised their statutory right to reject the uninsured motorist coverage, although it was only a partial rejection thereof; i. e., they simply exercised their freedom to contract and thereby limited their uninsured motorist coverage (assumedly for a corresponding decrease in policy premium) by a sum equal to workmen’s compensation benefits paid.
I discern no public policy consideration in this case that warrants infringement of the constitutional right to contract freely. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

. See U.C.A., 1953, 41-12-1, et seq.

. U.C.A., 1953, 41-12-21.

. Id.