Court Opinion

ID: 9883599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:53:56.407139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:23.437755
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting) :
. I dissent. The main opinion • indulges generalities as substitutes for the facts in subrogation matters relating to insurance contracts.
' The' policy in this case provided two things pertinent to this case: It insured Barnes, defendant here, who was no signatory to the insurance contract, but a beneficiary thereof, by the happenstance that he was a passenger in the car owned .by the insured who paid the premium. As such beneficiary he obtained no greater rights under the policy than did the insured, and under the terms of the policy the insurance company, plaintiff here, was 1) required to pay medical benefits to the defendant, as passenger, and 2) was subro-gated, in equity, which is the case here, to ány 'recovery'' for ’such' benefits máclé ííy defendant.1
Defendant^ having full "knowledge' of' thd policy terms, after'having been ■ paid ' títfé' maximum medical1 béttefits of-$1,000' by'thé' plaintiff- insurance-"company, 'sued for both medical and '■ general dmiiag'es. 1 At -this1 point' the"-insurance 'company;' plaintiff here, notified Bárríes' of-i'ts equitable right of subrogation to recover back what'it 'had paid-• BarneS ■ (-$l'-,000)',fo!r' the medicals-BarneS--settled his' suit.' against'the' tort-féa/ sor -for $7,500,- giving-a'full' release' fo'r -all Claim-S; ■ without insisting" that- the' rél'edfeé include "or1 exclude 'the- Medical payment1 ‘of $1,000 already-paid.''"In equity'one- i's-sai'd to-be required-to 'do''equity. If this bd"Sd; B-arnefe should have said “'I’have''been paid $1',000-. Oil 'the' claim for medical damages which I'sued yoti for along‘with general damages', and'therefore I'Cárirfot- give yó'ú a release'for' all claims unless1 you-'either pay an- additional $1,000 to'-'tli’e insurance company or maké out-two-checks, oné to it for its .-.equitable: subrogation-right of reimbursement of $1,000, leaving a second-check to me for $6,500.”. Barnes having failed in equity either to notify the plaintiff company of.its willingness to accept a sum. for a “release of -all .claims,” without condition or-'-exclusion of the one: dai'qi,-^' *108the medical one, — is not responsive to the maxim that “He who seeks equity must do equity.”2 It is no answer for the main opinion to return this case to determine what Barnes’s understanding with the defendant tort-feasor’s insurance carrier was, since such circumstances are quite irrelevant and inconsistent with any rights plaintiff and defendant here may have entertained. Barnes, defendant here, cannot adjudge the conditions under which he may give a release for all claims, without reservation, without being obligated to abide by the only contract that gave him any rights for medical payments at all — the insurance policy, and the only thing involved here. It seems silly for him to say that I am bound by the policy under which, though I was no signatory thereto, I am not bound, if the insurer doesn’t intervene and protect me in some fantastic claim I made in my complaint, which I admitted in my brief that I, “Barnes, fearful of losing suit . . . settled it for a lump sum of $7,500." To this author, this sounds like a first-class shakedown, and as icing on a cake that would give a double payment of $1,000 medical expense paid by the plaintiff insurance company, which latter in equity should have at least some kind of relief, and which should be the amount paid, or $1,000 as compared to $7,500 settlement which should amount to 100% recovery, in my opinion, but at least a proportionate re-
covery from Barnes. This would seem to be equity, and there is no equity in sending this case back to determine any other equities between plaintiff and defendant, since such equities already were resolved in an insurance contract, to the terms of which Barnes was but a beneficiary, not a signatory, and to which he was no party as to subrogation rights, and in which contract he was not entitled to lay down his own rules, but to whose terms, if he relies on its terms, he must comply, — one of which is that certainly he cannot sign a release of all claims unless he recognizes the rights of the contract under which he has accepted benefits, without reserving rights to the insurer in a release.
CROCKETT, J., dissents and files opinion.

. There was nothing therein requiring- the company to sue for or assist Barnes in recovering anything other than what the company had paid under the-policy; 'the' maximum $1,000.

. State Farm Mutual v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 22 Utah 2d 183, 450 P.2d 458 (1960).