Mahler v. Szucs: An Impediment to Interinsurer Arbitration and Affordable Personal Injury Protection Coverage
This Note will demonstrate that the Mahler court's decision will lead to inefficient results, because it has essentially compelled PIP insurers to accept representation by attorneys who have a conflict of interests, precluding such insurers from selecting the best means of recovering their PIP interests. As a result, the price of insurance premiums inevitably will escalate, while providing plaintiffs' attorneys with a windfall of increased fees for performing no additional work for their clients. The following discussion will show not only that the Mahler court holding is inefficient as a matter of public policy, but also that its analysis ignores a body of Washington case law that suggests the opposite conclusion should have been reached as a matter of legal precedent.
John R. Nicholson, Mahler v. Szucs: An Impediment to Interinsurer Arbitration and Affordable Personal Injury Protection Coverage, 23 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 213 (1999).