Kesler v. Tate

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from the denial of a motion by Transnational to intervene as a defendant allegedly to protect its rights in an action brought by Kesler, its insured, against defendants, alleged uninsured motorist tort-feasors, — where both plaintiff and defendants resisted the motion. Affirmed with costs to plaintiff and defendants.

The only substantial factual difference between this case and our recent case of Christensen v. Peterson,¹ so far as pertinent to the issue here, is that there the plaintiff attempted to join its carrier as defendant while here the carrier attempted to join itself as such. No point is made in the brief on appeal as to any reason for a different conclusion based on such distinction, we can see no such reason therefor, and consequently we conclude that the Christensen case is dispositive here, recognizing that there may be some division in the authorities.²

CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, J., concur.

1 . 25 Utah 2d 411, 483 P.2d 447 (1971).

2 . It is significant that practically all of the authorities cited by the appellant either are from one state, in which case it appears that they were not Supreme Court decisions of that state, or other authorities which similarly are intermediate, but not supreme court decisions, and we prefer to adhere to our own decision, whieh the appellant has not chosen to ■ mention or discuss in its brief.