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).