*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 480 P.2d 739 Death; situation, injured plead (a) party should which he has not fracture; for those (b) Dismemberment or reparation received under his first (c) disability; Permanent present insurance benefits. In order to (d) disfigurement; Permanent completely picture jury, factual to the (e) expenses Medical to a in ex- present wish to evidence party may cess of $500. of all his medical bills or other economic (2) The owner of a motor vehicle court, appropriate losses. The respect security to which is re- struction, explain jury could quired by who this act fails to have these have not been includ- economic losses such time security in effect at the of an prayer damages, ed in because the immunity accident shall have no injured party previously repa- received personally and shall be ration under own no-fault insurance his *4 of the benefits payment liable for the coverage. provided under 31-41—6. for Section foregoing interpretation The is the [Emphasis supplied]. provisions one consistent with the in Section statutory plan, par first Under this 9(2). legislative The obvious intent was to ty provided up PIP benefits to the amounts encourage compliance security pro- with the injured person paid Section 6 are to an design compel visions of the act. The Furthermore, regard without to fault. compliance only partial included not tort injured party precluded maintaining is from exemption, immunity lia- general damages (all recover bility provided for of the benefits damages other than those awarded for eco under for Section 6. losses),3 except nomic where the threshold 9(2) When in con- requirements 9(1) Section is construed of Section are met. Un junction 9(1), legislative 9(2), consequences der there two Section Section are emerges. intent to the owner of a vehicle who fails to motor have the security required Section 5: person No for whom direct benefit cov- first, immunity he has no from tort liabili erage provided is for in this act shall be second, ty; he personally is liable for the allowed to maintain a cause of action for provided benefits under Section general damages except . . where only logical inference party is if a has 5,

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 505 P.2d 783 2d judgment. or a settlement a held that an insurer’s claim under adopted interpretation by the Act of right subrogation portion to a majority of has further a the Court proceeds a from settlement made avoiding problems serious with re- merit third-party with a tortfeasor was a insured representation of the spect legal insured to be a record proved matter which had company. If the and the insurance same showing with the item of evidence represents parties in counsel both settle- damage sought to be was in fact recovered may negotiations, ment conflicts of interest The court included in settlement sum. determining, example, well arise stated that the must: lawsuit or not settle a or to whether present proof establishes larger recovery by way jury press for covered defendant’s and, course, risk run the of no verdict were the or cover those same hand, recovery at all. if both On the other already defendant received for which company the insurance insured are otherwise, indemnity [insurer]; represented independent counsel in to be receipt from the tort-feasor pressing against third-party the claim the re- does not entitle [insurer] tortfeasor, many likely. conflict in cases payments turn of the made it. [29 sum, effective and least cost- most 106-07, Utah 2d at 505 P.2d at 787.] dealing ly way with the relative If the no-fault insurer were accorded the insured and no-fault insurer in a amounts recovered recovery party require is to from third insured’s tort third- its remedy. party pursue own each its tortfeasor, problems insuperable may insured sue all less the problem conspicuous arise. The most paid by insurer. The amount the no-fault respect would arise settlements protect right to no-fault insurer has a the tort- an action insured proceeding if interests in an arbitration and the of the settlement feasor allocation re- necessary. prevent To double among the insured and no-fault insurer. his are not recov- covery, the no-fault amounts *8 compromis- almost always Settlements are in a by erable the victim either settlement es, approach on a they negotiated litigated judgment. and often This or in a reducing litigation, damage will have the of lump-sum particular basis without effect fees, cost of attorney’s and the automobile being individually. items dealt Refer- insurance. accident particular may not be damage ence to items in the course of discus- made HALL, (dissenting): Justice sions, particular damage and if each item is value, discussed, any, par- if accorded a this case nothing There about that war- departure long-established damage ticular item in the ultimate sum rants a from

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 592 P.2d 609 man, 14 Utah 384 P.2d 389. 2d U.C.A., 1953, 31-41-11. *9 41-2, 1. in Sec. U.C.A.1953. See statements 31—

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