In January, we reported on the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeal's decision in Kim v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 124 Haw. 415, 245 P.3d 488 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) (prior post here). The ICA determined that legislation had overruled the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. AIG, 89 Haw. 45, 968 P.2d 647 (1998), which held that an insured was not the real party in interest to challenge its auto insurer's refusal to pay benefits to the insured's medical provider.
Act 198, enacted in 2006, amended the no-fault law in Hawaii. The Act's legislative history expressed its intent to overrule Wilson. Further, the Act specifically stated that if there was a dispute between the provider and the insurer regarding payment of a claim, "the provider, insurer, or claimant may submit the dispute to the commissioner, arbitration, or court . . . ." The ICA determined in Kim that Act 198 rendered Wilson obsolete. Kim therefore qualified as a real party in interest to pursue her administrative action against Liberty Mutual.
Liberty Mutual applied for a writ of certiorari. It argued that the ICA's decision conflicted with the plain language of Act 198. Liberty Mutual noted the first sentence of the Act provides, "In the event of a dispute between the provider and the insurer over the amount of a charge . . . ." Haw. Rev. Stat. 431:10C-308.5 (e). This language, Liberty Mutual submitted, limited the provision to disputes solely between a provider and the insurer. Liberty Mutual further argued the ICA's decision erroneously departed from Wilson.
On April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court accepted Liberty Mutual's application for the writ and noted oral argument will be scheduled. We will keep an eye on this case as it further develops.
From her appellate practice prospective, my Damon Key blogging colleague, Rebecca Copeland (http://www.recordonappeal.com/record-on-appeal/), has a post here on the writ being granted in Kim.
