Court Opinion

ID: 9577585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:36:19.79424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:52.108564
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I concur with the dissent and add the following observations: Under our law as it has developed there is a paradox in that we allow the “real party in interest” to be joined in any action.1 If that basic rule were followed, there could be no possible question but that Transnational Insurance Company is a proper party here. The paradox is that because of the possibility that injecting insurance into the case may distort justice, particularly in that jurors may be more likely to rule against insurance companies, it has long been firmly established in our decisional law that this may not be done.2 In the instant case that difficulty is eliminated because the insurance company itself indicates its willingness to risk the possible distortion just mentioned and have it fully disclosed to court (and jury) that it pays the recovery. But it desires an opportunity to participate in assuring a just and accurate determination of the amount to be paid. If it is denied that opportunity it may well lie entirely in the hands of other parties (plaintiff and defendant) to make that determination, when neither has much interest in protecting the insurance company.

. In addition to Rule 24, U.R.O.P., see Rules 17 and 19, U.R.O.P. The latter states : “ . . . persons having a joint interest shall b<S made parties and be joined on tlie same side as plaintiffs or defendants.”

. Ellis v. Gilbert, 19 Utah 2d 189, 429 P.2d 39; Young v. Barney, 20 Utah 2d 108, 433 P.2d 846.