Opinion
Case No. 20040297-CA.
Filed June 23, 2005. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, 020911489, The Honorable Timothy R. Hanson.
Kathleen M. McConkie, Bountiful, for Appellant.
Aaron Alma Nelson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Davis, Greenwood, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
We have determined that "[t]he facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record[,] and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument." Utah R. App. P. 29(a)(3). Moreover, the issues presented are readily resolved under applicable law.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). See Guardian Title Co. v. Mitchell, 2002 UT 63, ¶ 12, 54 P.3d 130. "In reviewing a summary judgment, we accord no deference to the trial court and review its ruling for correctness." Price Dev. Co. v. Orem City, 2000 UT 26, ¶ 9, 995 P.2d 1237.
The trial court held that Utah Code section 31A-22-305(8)(b) specifically authorized Farmers to prohibit Charisse Phillips from recovering underinsured motorist benefits given the undisputed facts of this case. See Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-305(8)(b) (2003). Phillips now appeals the trial court's decision on the ground that section 305 is ambiguous and cannot be harmonized with other portions of the statute. We disagree.
The statute in effect at the time of the accident clearly provided that an insurance carrier was required to offer underinsured motorist coverage only "for covered persons who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of underinsured motor vehicles," ch. 188, § 1, 2000 Laws of Utah 627, 628, and that the term "underinsured motor vehicle" does not include "a motor vehicle that is covered under the liability coverage of the same policy that also contains the underinsured motorist coverage." Id. These provisions clearly and unambiguously preclude Phillips's claim.
Because such policy provisions limiting underinsured motorist coverage are specifically authorized by statute, see Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-305(8)(b)(i), (iii) (2003), we reject Phillips's public policy argument. See Allen v. Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 839 P.2d 798, 804 (Utah 1992) (noting court's unwillingness "to make sweeping modifications in the public policy that underlies the regulation of the insurance industry in the absence of legislative direction" and its "tradition of deferring to the legislature on questions of general policy when considering the validity of insurance policies").
Finally, Phillips has not met her "heavy `burden'" of demonstrating that the statute violates her due process right to receive compensation for her injuries. State v. MacGuire, 2004 UT 4, ¶ 8, 84 P.3d 1171 (citation omitted). Her brief is devoid of any meaningful analysis addressing the statute's unconstitutionality, and thus we decline to consider her due process argument. See Beehive Tel. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 2004 UT 18, ¶ 14, 89 P.3d 131; State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234, ¶ 12, 52 P.3d 467.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: James Z. Davis, Judge and Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge.