Wilson v. Educators Mut. Ins. Ass'n, 2017 UT 69

Jessica Wilson was struck and killed; EMIA paid $78,692.34 in medical expenses covered by insurance.
Wilson’s parents sued the driver for wrongful death and agreed to settle for the driver’s $100,000 policy limits.
Before that settlement finalized, EMIA filed a separate subrogation suit in its own name to recover the medical payments.
The actions were consolidated; the driver’s insurer interpleaded the $100,000 limits and the district court allocated $24,182.31 to EMIA and the remainder to the Wilsons.
The Utah Court of Appeals dismissed EMIA’s suit for lack of standing, reasoning an insurer may sue for subrogation only in the insured’s name and relying on common-law "made-whole" considerations.
The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding EMIA had contract-based standing under its policy’s explicit subrogation clause.

Issue	Wilsons' Argument	EMIA's Argument	Held
Whether an insurer may sue for subrogation in its own name	Statute and precedent limit subrogation to actions brought in the insured’s name; no independent common-law right	Policy expressly grants insurer authority to pursue subrogation in its own name	Insurer may sue in its own name when the policy expressly grants that right
Applicability of the "made-whole" doctrine	EMIA cannot assert subrogation because insureds are not yet fully compensated	The policy waives the made-whole requirement; parties can contract around equitable subrogation limits	Contractual terms can modify common-law made-whole requirements; policy controls here
Effect of Johanson precedent	Johanson supports prohibition on insurer suing in own name except in narrow circumstances	Johanson was dicta regarding other jurisdictions; does not establish a per se bar here	Johanson was overread by the court of appeals; it does not bar a contractual right to sue in insurer’s name
Whether consolidation/claim-splitting bars EMIA’s separate suit	Separate suit risks claim-splitting and inefficiency	Procedural rules (joinder/consolidation) mitigate claim-splitting; parties contracted for insurer’s independent suit	Claim-splitting concerns do not override an express contractual subrogation right, and consolidation remedies inefficiency

Johanson v. Cudahy Packing Co., 152 P.2d 98 (Utah 1944) (discusses common-law practice that subrogation suits are generally prosecuted in insured’s name)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co., 912 P.2d 983 (Utah 1996) (defines equitable subrogation as stepping into insured’s shoes after insurer pays claim)
Educators Mut. Ins. Ass’n v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 890 P.2d 1029 (Utah 1995) (applies insurer subrogation principles in Utah context)
Hill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 765 P.2d 864 (Utah 1988) (describes the made-whole principle and that it may be modified by contract)