*1 carry operations of the institution to judgment that Accordingly,
in secret. pub- plaintiff and other members of the
lic entitled to is affirmed.12 No costs
awarded. JJ., HALL, concur.
MAUGHAN STEWART, JJ.,
WILKINS and concur
result. COMPANY,
ALLSTATE INSURANCE Respondent,
Plaintiff and
Louise IVIE and Travelers Insurance
Companies, Defendant and
Appellant.
No. 15983.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Feb. salary sonally employees soWe decide this on the identifiable data of case record as court, presented “private higher to the district on the basis institutions of education statutory judicial subject of our law. We have taken to disclosure formation” subsequently Chap. provided by notice of the enacted extent the Utah Information S.L.U.1979, provides per- Sec. Act. Practices *2 Thereafter, $7,394.00. filed ac- Ivie Salisbury, damages against James
tion for
vehicle in-
the
the driver of
other motor
Salisbury’s liability
volved in the accident.
Company.
Insurance
insurer was Travelers
participate
join
to
or
Allstate declined
it had sub-
lawsuit,
it asserted
although
the
of the PIP
the extent
rogation rights to
paid.
had
benefits it
negligence
the
action was set
The trial of
1978,
March
Travel-
April
1978. In
$44,000.
Travelers’
ers offered to settle
$50,000 under the
to
was limited
employed
was
under
policy. Ivie’s counsel
viz., twenty-
arrangement,
contingency fee
preparation
actual trial
percent prior
five
to
were settled imme-
and one third if the case
trial, or went
diately
during
or
before
judgment. Additionally, Ivie was re-
to
expenses
all
incurred
sponsible for
costs
After re-
prosecution
her claim.
viewing
deposition of tort-feasor Salis-
bury,
investigation, Ivie deter-
and further
opportunity
a limited
mined there would be
of the liabili-
judgment
collect a
in excess
to
$50,000, although Ivie
ty policy limit of
$150,000 damages. Under these
claimed
circumstances,
accepted a settlement of
Ivie
Christensen,
L.
Humpherys
Rich
Gard- $44,000;
attorney’s
limited her
thus she
iner,
Evans,
City,
Jensen &
Salt Lake
twenty-five percent. Travelers is-
fees to
and appellant.
defendant
payable
was
sued
one
made
two drafts:
L.
Ivie in the sum of
Midgley,
City,
plain-
jointly
E.
Lake
to Allstate and
Salt
$7,394.00;
respondent.
tiff
was for the balance of
other
$44,000
refused to de-
settlement.
Ivie
MAUGHAN,
$7,394.00 Allstate,
Justice:
liver the check
present
action was filed.
involving
us is
“no-
Before
a matter
our
resolved, by
fault”
complaint,
pleaded
insurance act.
was
In its
Allstate
subroga-
summary judgment,
plaintiff
in favor of
that it was entitled
alternative
Company. We reverse
terms of the
Allstate Insurance
tion under the contractual
in which Ivie
remand.
awarded
defendant
on the vehicle
Costs
issued
passenger
paid
Ivie.
it had
was a
extent
was
entitled
reim-
Defendant,
“Ivie,”
hereinafter
sustained
31-41-11,
bursement under
U.C.A.
personal injuries
severe
in a motor vehicle
in 1973. Allstate further
enacted
Company,
accident. Allstate Insurance
pleaded for a declaration of
herein,
plaintiff
insur-
was the “no-fault”
recovery as
result
regard to Ivie’s
ance carrier for the vehicle in which Ivie
Allstate
settlement of her
action.
was
passenger.
compliance
judgment.
summary
moved for
Act,
Utah Automobile No-Fault Insurance
31, U.C.A.1953,
summary
opposed
Title
as enacted
Ivie
injury
of fact.
paid
(personal
ground
Allstate
Ivie PIP
there were triable issues
protection)
amounting
urged
principles apply
to sub-
equitable
benefits
the sum Ivie
types:
first,
These laws are of
rogation,
is entitled to be
two
and the insured
statutes;
second,
insurer is
add-on
made whole before the
entitled
exemption
any portion of the
tort-
The add-on
statutes.
stat-
merely
negligence
feasor.
Ivie
she sustained severe utes
argued
system
add to the
to settle for a
compelled
reparations
and was
with some kind
no-fault ben-
totally
compensate
sum
her
inadequate
efits
injured person,
regard
to an
without
*3
According
the total
sustained.
preserved
fault. All tort claims are
under
to her argument,
prevail
Allstate must
statutes, although
provide
these
some
prove
Ivie,
equity
it has a
greater
subrogation
avoid
or offset to
double recov-
which,
effect,
require proof
Ivie
ery for an item of
These
loss.
add-on laws
had
payment
received double
for her medi-
regarded
are not
legisla-
as true “no-fault”
'
cal expenses.1
tion.
Ivie further
Allstate were
urged, if
enti-
The true
insurance is a type
“no-fault”
of
claim,
tled to
it should con- compensation system
couples
attorney’s
tribute to the
fees in-
costs and
payment of
benefits on
no-fault basis
collecting
curred
by Ivie in
claim. Ivie with
partial
elimination
fault-based
cites
principle
that
the absence of an tort actions for
both economic
agreement
contrary
as set forth by
pain
system generally
and suffering. This
insurance,
terms in a
the in-
continues
permit
fault-based claims for
sured,
who is
successful
pain
suffering in the more serious cases
money payable by
funds which
include
and for economic losses above
ben
no¡-fault
company,
insured
an
insurance
is entitled
system
efits. A
exemp
which has no tprt
expenses
to deduct
and other
attorney fees
tion at all is not a “no-fault”! insurance.
necessarily
reasonably and
incurred in mak- The
compulsory,
Utah no-fault statute is a
ing
pay-
such a
from the amount
partial
coupling
law
exemption
no-
able to the
company.2
insurance
6,
fault insurance
Section with a
bodily
elimination of tort claims for
The trial court
Allstate’s
granted
motion
injury.
for summary judgment. Specifically, the
granted
court
judgment against
Allstate
Section 2 of
provides:
the act
Ivie and
jointly
severally
Travelers
purpose
of this act is to
¡require
$7,394.00.
the sum
court declared
prescribed!benefits
certain
Travelers
was bound
respect
vehicle' accidents
motor
31^41-11,
Ivie was not
entitled
through
ap-
or. other
either insurance
to an attorney’s
from Allstate.
fee
proved
on the basis of no
security, fault,
however,
preserving,
To
parties,
resolve the
between the
issues
injured
an
person
pursue
custom-
41—11;
it is essential to construe Section 31—
ary tort claims where the most serious
however, this section
be construed in
cannot
type
injuries
occur
isolation, but must be correlated with other
pertinent
(1)
provisions Chapter
person
41 of Title
No
whom direct
bene-
coverage
No-Fault
fit
for in this act
Automobile
Insurance
is
proper
Act. As an
shall be
maintain
cause of
aid to the
construction
allowed to
act,
damages arising
out
this
an article
action for
reference to
Robert
alleged
E.
Keeton in the
Utah Law Review
have
1973
is
beneficial,
Systems
been
accident
Compensation
caused
an automobile
Statute,
except
Utah’s
has been caused
No-Fault
1973 ULR 383.
where there
Therein,
or more of the
explained
twenty-one
accident
one
legislation.
following:
states have
“no-fault”
enacted
Barnes,
Company
1. Transamerica
2. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance
v.
Insurance
Lyon
Company Clinton,
(1972);
29 Utah 2d
P.2d 645
505
783
v.
518
P.2d
267 Or.
Indemnity Company,
(1974).
Hartford Accident and
(1971).
Utah 2d
the security required under Section met, requirements Until the threshold privileg no-fault insurance act confers two injured party is limited to his direct first, es: he granted is tort immuni coverage. benefit If his meet the ty; second, personally he is not liable for requirements, may threshold then he main- provided the benefits under Section 6. He tain a claim damages. for does, however, customary remain liable for “general damages” term explained is as fol- claims, viz., general damages and eco lows: compensated by nomic losses not the bene Another interesting feature 6, paid fits under Section where the thresh phrasing Utah law is its distinctive provisions 9(1) old are met. Section exemption provision, which declares: provision “No cov- There is no statuto for whom direct benefit ry erage provided scheme to indicate the tort-feasor who is in this act shall be for complied security provisions action for allowed to maintain a cause of act, personally general damages becomes liable for the unless one of the thresh- requirements when old The term benefits Section is met.” “general damages” is entitled under is not defined in the 9(1) exemption provisions threshold of Section to main statute. The tort injuries. statutes, tain a claim personal referring In such a of other rather
3. 1973 ULR “general phrases (b) have used That damages” the issue “pain, such “pain suffering” as such reimbursement and the amount of shall be mandatory, same decided suffering, anguish, mental and inconven- binding ience,” arbitration between the insur- or have used especially defined ers. term such as noneconomic detriment. “general damages”
The term often was is not a of clarity. model A used, pro- public discussion degree generated by of confusion has been posals, as a ele- comprehensive term for supplied by subtitle this section ments of tort other than eco- publisher Annotated, of the Utah Code losses, nomic which were often referred Allen Company. The subtitle Smith reads: “specials.” usage, as In view of that it “Subrogation rights arbitration be- contrast, “general damages” seem that as tween insurers.” subtitle laws, Utah, 1973, used in statute includes dam- the session Laws Session, Regular Chapter reads: ages suffering. may “Condi- pain and rea- by.” tions insurers to abide sonably argued “general dam- ages” broadly refers more to all In reference to Keeton other than those awarded for economic states:5 preclusion “general and that subrogation- The Utah preserves law damages” precludes also award among like no- reimbursement disability (including example, as such is, fault insurers. That after an insurer disability golf), play distinguished pays entitled to *5 from an reimbursing award economic neg- reimbursement from the insurer of a resulting from the disability.4 ligent who been liable driver would have injured to the person but for the Thus, 9(1) (2), the under Section partial tort exemption. These claims for partial immunity tort-feasor has for subject reimbursement are to be declared damages until the threshold to mandatory, binding arbitration be- met and personal liability pay no for the appear tween the insurers. This to ment of the benefits under Section preservation be undesirable fault 6, if he complied security has with the re among may based claims insurers. quirements of the act. however, provision happen, will Section 11 must be construed in connec- practice. example, fall disuse in For into with provisions. tion the other relevant large two insurers with volume of provides: Section 31-41-11 may agree claims each other (1) Every insurer authorized write square periodically accounts an actuar- required insurance this act shall basis, forego or ial even to these reim- agree as a condition to being allowed to each other bursement claims alto- continue to write insurance in the State gether, cheaper because it would Utah; both do so. (a) That where its insured is or provision of Oregon The state simi- has a legally would be personal liable for the 11, viz., 743.825. It lar to Section ORS by any person to sustained Oregon emphasized has an should be required whom act benefits under this exemp- add-on statute no insurer, have paid by been another in- injured Oregon requires further tion.6 fund, cluding the state insurance it will legal or person include in his claim reimburse other insurer such insurer, the benefits furnished ORS payment of such but not in statute, By there 743.828(3)(b). separate excess of the amount of so Oregon subrogation. provision recoverable, provides: ORS 743.830 p. p. Id. 392. 6.Id. 386. pp. Id. at 392-393. provisions in a motor vehicle (7)Any insurer motor vehicle
If a
ben-
insur-
injury protection
health
personal
policy
furnished
or
liability insurance
efits
to the insurer
giving rights
ance
pro-
subject
(1)
insurer is entitled
or the
relating to
any
judgment
or
ceeds of
construed
shall be
of this section
matter
the exercise
may result from
provi-
in accordance
applied
injured person
rights
of the
sions of
section.
responsible for
against any person legally
would be a redun
This latter section
accident,
bene-
the extent of such
Oregon code
dancy if
743.825
Section
by the insurer less the
fits furnished
subrogation by the
provided for
and attor-
expenses, costs
surer’s share of
insured,
such insured
injured person in
to its
when
incurred
insurer
ney fees
recovery.
per
with such
connection
or
received a settlement
Similarly,
hold
11 in
(2)
injured person
injuries.
shall
sonal
the insurer all
for the benefit of
trust
Act cannot be
No-Fault Insurance
has,
he
recovery which
such
conferring on the
interpreted as
fur-
the extent of such benefits
subrogation to the funds
insurer
nished.
injuries.
received
its insured
(3)
do whatev-
shall
grants the no-fault
secure,
do noth-
proper
er is
and shall
limited,
right to seek reimburse
equitable
rights.
such
ing
prejudice,
after loss to
against the
proceeding
ment in arbitration
(4)
writing by the in-
requested
If
11 cannot be
liability insurer. Section
take,
surer,
injured person shall
subrogation rights on
conferring
deemed as
not in conflict
through any representative
insurer,
insured as
vis-a-vis its
the no-fault
designated by the
with him
interest
legal
or
in a settlement
his
n
insurer,
necessary
may
such action as
action.
such benefits
appropriate
recover
responsi-
furnished as
from such
purpose
subroga-
The nature and
taken in the
person,
ble
such action to be
*6
Subrogation is a
tion should be reviewed.
injured
only to
person,
name of the
is to work
equity,
purpose
its
creature of
by
furnished
the extent of the benefits
adjustment between the
equitable
out an
recovery,
a
the insurer.
In the event of
discharge
ultimate
parties by securing the
reimbursed out
the insurer shall also be
who,
equity and
by
of a debt
the
injured person’s
recovery
of such
for the
conscience,
pay
it.
good
ought
Subro-
attorney fees
expenses,
share of
costs and
. when
gation has a dual basis—".
in connection
by
incurred
the insurer
for the loss
payment
the insurer has made
recovery.
only equitable
by
party,
it is
caused
third
(5)
calculating respective
shares
be reim-
insurer should
just
and
expenses,
attorney fees under
costs and
insured,
to the
be-
payment
for his
bursed
section,
allocation shall
this
the basis of
would be
either the insured
cause otherwise
to the
respective proportions
the
borne
be
recovery
by virtue of a
recovery by:
unjustly
total
enriched
party,
insurer and the third
from both the
(a)
by the in-
benefits furnished
Such
surer;
recovery by
such double
and
in the absence of
insured,
go free
party would
the
the third
(a).
(b)
recovery less
The total
legal
that he has a
notwithstanding the fact
execute
(6)
injured person
shall
”
obligation
damage.7
in connection with the
and deliver to the insurer such instru-
papers may
appropriate
ments and
Insurance
No-Fault
Under the Utah
rights
obligations
to secure the
and
required
the
Act,
the tort-feasor who
by
insurer
him as established
this
to the in-
security,
personally
is not
liable
section.
2d,
61.18, pp.
Sec.
248-249.
16 Couch
Insurance
jured person
in,
savings
bene-
rising
tain
costs
auto-
fits,
9(2); therefore,
the tort-feasor
mobile accident insurance and to effectu-
has no personal legal obligation to reim-
efficient, equitable
ate a more
method of
injured party’s
burse the
On the
insurer.
greater
bulk of
handling
hand,
other
liability
the tort-feasor’s
insur-
injury claims
out of
that arise
automobile
er,
fulfilling
duty
its
to respond to the
accidents,
being
these
those
involving
not
injured
claims
party
to the limits of
great
damages.
amounts of
policy,
its
stands in the shoes of its insured
Contrary to the
of the dissenting
view
pays
on the
per-
basis
its insured’s
opinion
case,
result reached
in this
victim;
liability
sonal
per-
majority of the
will not result
liability
sonal
does not
PIP pay-
include
double
person.
to an
Thus,
ments.
the tort victim’s recovery
will,
hand,
greater
on the other
result in
liability
insurer cannot be reduced
efficiency, accuracy and fairness in deter-
payments.
the PIP
If the victim’s re-
mining
rights
the relative
of the interested
covery
be reduced
the amount of the
parties. Also, it will have the beneficial
PIP payments by «granting his no-fault in-
effect
reducing
possibilities
for con-
right
surer
subrogation,
it is the no-
troversy
litigation
between
in-
fault insurer who receives double recovery.
surers
their
insureds.
This is so because the insurer receives a
majority opinion,
Pursuant
to the
a no-
premium
for the
and then receives
fault insured in an
tort-
reimbursement,
full
while the
feasor may not recover from the tortfeasor
surance available to recompense the victim
already paid by
sums
the no-fault in-
depleted by
payments for
lia-
Thus,
surer.
recovery by
double
an insured
bility
responsible
insurer is not
vic-
insurer,
is in
fact barred.
tim.
being subrogated
to the
of the in-
action,
In the instant
Allstate has no
31-41-11,
sured as
has a
§
right
vie,
of I
directly
to collect
tort-
from the
ruling.
the trial
court erred
(whether or
feasor’s
not the insured
cause is remanded with an order to enter
claim) by way
has filed
judgment in
Ivie
favor of
in the amount of
pursuant
arbitration
If
§ 31—41-11.
$7,394.00, the
representing
sum
injured party
files an action
payments. However,
pre-
Allstate is
third-party tortfeasor which results in a
cluded from claiming reimbursement from
insured,
judgment
Travelers in an
proceeding.
arbitration
dispositive
on the
given
effect
issue
of fault and the relative liabilities
WILKINS, J., concurs.
*7
the
in
companies
the arbitration
insurance
STEWART,
(concurring):
Justice
pro-
the
proceedings, for it is in
arbitration
I concur in the
of
Mau-
opinion
Justice
ceedings
the
insurer is subro-
that
no-fault
ghan
following
and add
in
the
comments
gated
rights
of the insured. Because
explanation my position.
of
privity
the
stands in
company
insurance
insured,
judicata
Insur-
of res
principles
Utah
with its
Automobile No-Fault
Act,
41—1,
(1953),
ance
as much. In
seq.,
estoppel
et
and collateral
dictate
§
U.C.A.
31—
amended,
specific
clear
do
because
go
is neither
nor
cases which
to
settlement,
with
of a
insurer and the
respect
rights
to
relative
of a
the
the
use
insurer
insured’s
be able to
the
may
in an
tortfeasor’s insurer
Accordingly,
from third-party
agreement
a
and amount as a
tortfeasor.
settlement
it is
Act to
obligation
our
construe the
guide
to
for the no-fault
settling
in
in
voluntary
effectuate
the
set out
purposes
payments.
§
settlement
is
If no
provision,
part, provides:
31-41-2. That
in
recorded,
may
apparatus
arbitration
hereby
is
used
No doubt the
dispute.
to settle the
legislature
The intention of the
companies
cer-
be able most
stabilize,
insurance
will
possibly
if not effectuate
prob-
is often unascertainable. The
them-
reached
the accounts between
to settle
cases
dealing
when
lem is even more difficult
proceedings.
resort to formal
selves without
impossi-
it is
general
with a
verdict because
language
comports with the
This procedure
damage factors are
to determine what
ble
31-41-11.
of §
and intent
in a
verdict. Because of
included
hand,
of the
a construction
On the other
identify
segregate
dam-
the failure
insurer to
subrogates the
Act which
items, subrogation may not be an effec-
age
proceed-
judicial
in a
rights
insured
remedy
prevent
on
tive
double
the arbitra-
meaningless
ing
render
would
hand,
the victim the
the one
and to insure
Act,
insupera-
lead to
of
tion
on
other.
full value of his lawsuit
equi-
an
making
difficulties
practical
ble
per-
if the
These difficulties are avoided
the insurance com-
between
table allocation
protection
injury
payments
sonal
made
insured,
litiga-
increased
pany
its
damage
the insured are not a recoverable
its attendant costs.
tion and
against the
by
item in an action
the insured
Barnes,
Insurance Co.
In Transamerica
action results in a
tortfeasor —whether the
(1972), this
1205 principles adopting of a subrogation. apprehension In I no particular have as to view, contrary majority only ig- of law application the new rule of language nores the of the Utah Automobile practical, future its and cases since dollars No-Fault which specifically preserves Act1 appear to be no different cents effect would subrogation rights, but ignores also were if doctrine of ruling recent unanimous of this judicial proceeding, to. adhered In Co.,2 v. Jones Transamerica Insurance simply longer court will no make award specifically wherein we recognized that the compensated already by PIP preserved Act3 subrogation rights between and, payments, similarly, negotiating insurers whenever no-fault benefits are lawsuit, an will settlement of a no paid. by doubt “short” his settlement offer a sum pure simple facts of this case are adequate obliga- its reimbursement cover wholly supportive of the summary judg- tion payments for PIP advanced appealed ment compro- from. Ivie chose to injured party. insurer of the mise her claim the tortfeasor $44,000 accepting the sum of full settle- hand, new applying On the other rule settlement, ment thereof. Prior to the present law in the me case causes con- duly Travelers advised Ivie its intention highly siderable concern for it effects to include Allstate its settlement draft unjust majority and harsh result. The thereby satisfy statutory its obligation would be better advised to abide to reimburse Allstate for its advance of thereby so-called “Sunburst Doctrine” $7,394 Indeed, payments. PIP at prospective make the law change settlement, time of a separate issued only. pay- draft for the exact sum said PIP ($7,394),payable jointly ments to Ivie and
Allstate. CROCKETT, (supplemental Justice Chief dissent): appeal
Travelers is not a
it,
Ivie makes no further claim
con-
join
I
in Justice Hall’s dissent and would
ceding
dispute
matter in
is her
affirm the
of the trial court.
decision
Hence,
$7,394.
entitlement to the said
objective
The main
insurance is to
this Court to
said
award
sum to her and
cavalierly
then to
suggest
provide
recoupment
that Travelers is
a fair
honest
obligated
pay
over an additional
sum
suffered,
provide
and not to
a basis
$7,394
way
reimbursement,
Allstate
for parlaying
the loss into a double
grave injustice.
constitutes a
Such result
part
all or
thus
suffered.
was not
even
sought,
contemplated, by
nor
The purpose of the No-Fault Insurance
parties,
Travelers,
least of all
Act is to effectuate a more efficient method
present
is not
to defend its interests.
of handling
arising from
minor claims
auto-
Notwithstanding the assertion of the ma-
great
mobile
which do not involve
accidents
jority to
contrary,
the net
of its
effect
damages;
provide
amounts of
and to
holding is
to afford Ivie a double
means
prompt
for the
certain
payments
unbargained
at the
regard
minimal losses without
to fault and
expense
addition,
of Travelers.
it de-
litigation,
thus without
in order to effectu-
prives Travelers of the benefit of
bar-
savings
ate
rising
certain
costs of
gain struck with Ivie and
obli-
increases its
It should
gation
$44,000
automobile accident insurance.1
$51,394,
by judicial
fiat.
recovery per-
be realized
that if
double
U.C.A., 1953, 31-41-1,
Ry.
1.
seq.
et
4. Laid
down in the case of Great Northern
Co.,
v.
Co.
Sunburst Oil
287 U.S.
S.Ct.
Utah,
(1979).
77 L.Ed.
cited in Rubalcava
Gisse
1206 allowed, negotiated their settlement had parties opinion the main mitted increase, Travelers was understanding rather other with an not do than could decrease, insurance. the PIP benefits it costs of Allstate for total to reimburse arrived and that settlement paid, had see that the little reflection to requires It thereto, no unfairness or in addition at was injustice to results in majority decision does But that injustice would result. treating a similar Travelers. defendant If such an here. appear to be facts Ins. case Transamerica in the situation understanding is to the condition ne- be Barnes,2 “If stated that v. Co. understood it should so gotiations, include were intended to prospective parties, and effective two expenses, plaintiff’s prior medical Doctrine,” applying basis “Sunburst issued, plain- one to should have been drafts Justice Hall. de- referred jointly and one to tiff and defendant proce- exact That is the fendant alone.”3 this instance. by Travelers in
dure followed HALL, J., supplemen- also concurs ne- fairly questioned cannot CROCKETT, J. C. tal dissent Ivie and Travelers between Mrs. gotiations was Travelers
were made in awareness that to reimburse Allstate
obligated Mrs. Ivie had
$7,394 payments PIP which received; agreed that she
already nor $44,000 discharge
accept Travelers by two liability. is confirmed total This $50,- first, limit was policy Travelers’
facts: 000; agree would sense to and it make no FIRE AND MARINE INSUR ST. PAUL reim- $44,000,plus obligation to pay ANCE, Appellant, Plaintiff and $7,394 payments, Allstate for the burse would thus exceed Travelers’ Second, Travelers by the fact that ASSURANCE, limits. COMMERCIAL UNION drafts, separate one for issued the two Respondent. Defendant and $7,394 Mrs. Ivie and payable to Allstate and No. 16080. $36,606 Ivie, just as Mrs. the other for case, su- Supreme Barnes this Court directed in the Court of Utah. pra. Feb. in this they appear the facts Under case, law and my ideas of it is discordant to $44,- require pay Travelers to
justice and of Mrs. Ivie satisfy
000 to claims of
Allstate, pay required then also be
$7,394 it for that to Allstate to reimburse Mrs. paid of already Allstate had
portion simply damages. plainly
Ivie’s That injustice: Travelers’
results in it increases $7,394 agreed than it
obligation by more it allows Ivie double
pay; and Mrs. than she awarding her more that much accept. agreed
had problem no
There seem to be opin- in the main proposition espoused If the had different.
ion if the facts been 2d, 101, (1972). Id. at 787. 2. 29 Utah P.2d