Beiwili v. Enterprise

1 Utah Code Ann. §§ 41-12a-101 to -806 (2005 & Supp. 2006).
2006 UT 80
This opinion is subject to revision before final
publication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
Beiwi Li, Personal Representative No. 20050583
of the Estate of Beizhong Li,
Deceased,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company
of Utah, a Utah corporation,
Shuyu Zhang, Geico Indemnity Company,
a Maryland corporation, and John Doe, F I L E D
whose true name is not known,
Defendants and Petitioner, December 5, 2006
---
Third District, Salt Lake
The Honorable Timothy R. Hanson
No. 020906593
Attorneys: Earl D. Tanner, Salt Lake City, for respondent
Paul M. Belnap, Joseph J. Joyce, Andrew D. Wright,
A. Joseph Sano, Salt Lake City, for petitioner
---
On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals
DURRANT, Justice:
INTRODUCTION
¶1 This case concerns the insurance obligation of rental
car companies under the Financial Responsibility of Motor Vehicle
Owners and Operators Act (the “Financial Responsibility Act”).1
The Financial Responsibility Act requires owners of motor
vehicles to maintain liability insurance in the amount of at

2 See id. § 41-12a-301(2) (2005); id. §§ 31A-22-302(1)(a),
-304(1)(a) (2005 & Supp. 2006).
3 In re Hoopiiaina Trust, 2006 UT 53, ¶ 2, _ P.3d _.
No. 20050583 2
least $25,000 to cover bodily injury or death.2 Utah Code
section 31A-22-314 requires rental car companies to provide their
renters with “primary coverage” meeting the requirements of the
Financial Responsibility Act “unless there is other valid or
collectible insurance coverage.” Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company
of Utah (“Enterprise”) contends that section 31A-22-314 excuses
it from providing any insurance coverage when there is other
valid or collectible insurance coverage amounting to at least
$25,000. The estate of Beizhong Li (“Li’s Estate”) argues that
this section exempts Enterprise only from providing primary
insurance when there is other valid or collectible insurance
coverage, and that absent such other insurance, the minimum
liability coverage obligation imposed upon Enterprise by the
Financial Responsibility Act remains unaltered by the section.
We conclude that the existence of other valid or collectible
insurance does not excuse Enterprise from its insurance
obligations as a vehicle owner and that this result is dictated
by the plain language and statutory context of section 31A-22-
314.
BACKGROUND
¶2 The court of appeals reversed the district court’s
grant of summary judgment. On certiorari, we therefore “recite
the facts in a light most favorable to [Li’s Estate], the non-
moving party below.”3 On July 20, 2000, Li rented a Ford Taurus
(the “Taurus”) from Enterprise. Li signed a rental agreement
(the “Rental Agreement”) with Enterprise representing that he had
personal automobile insurance meeting the minimum requirements of
the Financial Responsibility Act. He initialed the box declining
the optional $8 per day supplemental liability protection offered
by Enterprise. The rental agreement designated Shuyu Zhang, Li’s
traveling companion and co-worker, as an additional authorized
driver. The next day, while Zhang was driving the Taurus and Li
was a passenger, they were involved in a traffic accident that
caused Li’s death.
¶3 Li’s Estate filed suit against both Zhang and the
unknown driver of a “miss-and-run” vehicle, “John Doe,” alleging
that the negligence of both drivers caused the accident. It also
named Li’s personal automobile insurer, Geico Indemnity Company
(“Geico”), and Enterprise as additional defendants in the case.
In total, Li’s Estate identified three insurance providers that

4 Li v. Zhang, 2006 UT App 246, ¶¶ 12-14, 120 P.3d 30.
5 Id.
6 Id. ¶ 12.
3 No. 20050583
could be required to pay damages in the case: American Insurance,
as Zhang’s liability insurer; Geico, as Li’s provider of both
underinsured motorist and uninsured motorist coverages; and
Enterprise, as the self-insuring owner of the Taurus.
¶4 Li’s Estate was able to reach settlements on Zhang’s
liability with Zhang’s Insurer, American Insurance, for the
liability policy limit of $100,000, and with Li’s insurer, Geico,
for the policy limit of $100,000 on Li’s underinsured motorist
coverage. In total, Li’s Estate has recovered $200,000 on
Zhang’s liability. Li’s Estate asserts that this does not cover
the damages caused by Zhang’s negligence, however, and it
reserved its claim against Enterprise for an additional $25,000
based on Enterprise’s liability coverage on the Taurus. With
respect to the claims of Li’s Estate against John Doe, Li’s
Estate settled with Geico for $50,000, half of the $100,000
policy limit on Li’s uninsured motorist coverage.
¶5 Enterprise then moved for summary judgment, arguing
that Utah Code section 31A-22-314 exempts Utah rental car
companies from providing liability coverage on their rental
vehicles when there is “other valid or collectible insurance”
available from the driver’s personal automobile insurance policy
and that other coverage is sufficient to meet Utah’s $25,000
minimum liability coverage requirement. The trial court agreed
and granted summary judgment, finding that there was other valid
or collectible insurance available in this case.
¶6 The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding
that other provisions in the Utah Code require Enterprise to
insure its rental vehicles while they are operated on the
highways.4 It held that section 31A-22-314 does not excuse
rental car companies from all coverage, but only from providing
“primary coverage,” as opposed to secondary or excess coverage,
when there is “other valid or collectible insurance.”5 The court
of appeals thus held that section 31A-22-314 “speaks only to the
positioning of coverage provided by rental car companies vis-a-
vis other available coverage”6 and that summary judgment was
inappropriate because Li’s Estate may be entitled to recover
money from Enterprise if, as Li’s Estate alleges, Zhang’s
liability exceeds the policy limit on the primary insurance

7 Id. ¶ 13.
8 Id. ¶ 12.
9 John Holmes Constr. v. R.A. McKell Excavating, 2005 UT 83,
¶ 6, 131 P.3d 199.
10 See id.
11 Lovendahl v. Jordan Sch. Dist., 2002 UT 130, ¶ 20, 63
P.3d 705 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
12 Id. ¶ 21 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
13 Miller v. Weaver, 2003 UT 12, ¶ 17, 66 P.3d 592.
No. 20050583 4
policy.7 To arrive at this conclusion, the court of appeals
found that the language of section 31A-22-314 was ambiguous and
then looked to legislative history and public policy to aid its
analysis.8
¶7 We granted certiorari to consider the effect of Utah
Code section 31A-22-314 on the insurance coverage that Utah
rental car companies are required by statute to provide. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78-2-2(3)(a), (5).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8 On certiorari, we review the decision of the court of
appeals, not the trial court.9 Here, we are called upon to
review the court of appeals’ interpretation of Utah Code section
31A-22-314 and Utah’s Financial Responsibility Act. This is an
issue of statutory construction, which we review for
correctness.10
ANALYSIS
¶9 In interpreting the insurance requirements imposed on
rental car companies by Utah’s statutes, we first turn to
familiar canons of statutory construction. Our primary goal in
interpreting these statutes is “to evince the true intent and
purpose of the Legislature.”11 We do so “by first looking to the
statute’s plain language, and giv[ing] effect to the plain
language unless the language is ambiguous.”12 In conducting this
plain meaning analysis, “[w]e read the plain language of the
statute as a whole, and interpret its provisions in harmony with
other statutes in the same chapter and related chapters.”13

14 Utah Code Ann. §§ 41-12a-101 to -806 (2005 & Supp. 2006).
15 Id. §§ 31A-22-301 to -319.
16 Id. § 41-12a-301(2)(a) (2005).
17 Id. § 41-12a-301(5) (exempting owners of off-highway
vehicles, certain farm equipment, electric bicycles, motorized
scooters, and personal motorized mobility devices).
5 No. 20050583
¶10 In this case, Utah Code section 31A-22-314 can be
interpreted only with reference to the broader statutory scheme
that imposes motor vehicle insurance requirements on motor
vehicle owners. The insurance requirements related to motor
vehicles are generally divided between two titles of the Utah
Code: Title 41, chapter 12a, the Financial Responsibility of
Motor Vehicle Owners and Operators Act, which requires motor
vehicle owners to maintain insurance on their vehicles and
imposes penalties for noncompliance,14 and Title 31A, chapter 22,
part III, which sets forth specific provisions and coverages that
must be included within motor vehicle insurance policies.15 In
conducting this analysis, we discuss the broader requirements of
the Financial Responsibility Act before turning to the more
specific provisions of Title 31A, including Utah Code section
31A-22-314. Because the statutes relevant to this case have not
undergone substantive changes since the accident occurred in
2000, we cite to the statutes as they are presently codified.
I. SECTION 41-12a-301(2) OF UTAH’S FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
IMPOSES A DUTY TO MAINTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE ON ALL
RESIDENT OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
¶11 We start our analysis of the insurance requirements
imposed on Utah rental car companies with section 41-12a-
301(2)(a) of the Financial Responsibility Act, which provides as
follows: “Every resident owner of a motor vehicle shall maintain
owner’s or operator’s security in effect at any time that the
motor vehicle is operated on a highway or on a quasi-public road
or parking area within the state.”16 Specific exceptions to this
requirement are listed in subsection 41-12a-301(5), none of which
apply to resident owners of rental cars operated on roadways.17
Thus, section 41-12a-301(2)(a) imposes a baseline requirement
that Utah rental car companies must maintain security (insurance)
on their rental cars. Like any motor vehicle owner, a rental car
company may meet this security requirement by acting as a self-
insurer if it meets the requirements of Utah Code section 41-12a-

18 Id. § 41-12a-103(9)(d) (defining “[o]wner’s or operator’s
security” to include “maintaining a certificate of self-funded
coverage under Section 41-12a-407”).
19 Id. § 41-12a-407(2) (“Persons holding a certificate of
self-funded coverage under this chapter shall pay benefits to
persons injured from the self-funded person’s operation,
maintenance, and use of motor vehicles as would an insurer
issuing a policy to the self-funded person containing the
coverages under Section 31A-22-302.”); see also Chambers v.
Agency Rent-A-Car, 878 P.2d 1164, 1166 (Utah Ct. App. 1994)
(“Regardless of the form of security selected, the owner must
provide the intended beneficiaries the full benefits required by
statute.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
20 Utah Code Ann. § 41-12a-301(2)(a) (2005) (emphasis
added).
21 See, e.g., Foster v. Salt Lake County, 712 P.2d 224, 226-
27 (Utah 1985)(discussing the duty to insure under the prior
“Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act,” which required that
(continued...)
No. 20050583 6
407,18 but in such cases it will be required to pay benefits as
if it were its own insurance provider.19 Enterprise has elected
to self-insure.
¶12 Enterprise does not dispute that section 41-12a-
301(2)(a) imposes the same baseline motor vehicle insurance
requirements on Enterprise and other rental car companies that it
imposes on any other resident motor vehicle owner. Instead,
Enterprise primarily argues that section 31A-22-314 provides
specific exceptions from the requirements of section 41-12a-
301(2)(a) for rental car companies. This is an argument that we
will address in depth. However, we first pause to consider
Enterprise’s novel interpretation of section 41-12a-301(2)(a)’s
baseline insurance requirements.
¶13 Enterprise asserted at oral argument that the motor
vehicle owner’s duty to “maintain owner’s or operator’s security”
on a vehicle while it is operated on a highway, road, or parking
area within the state under section 41-12a-301(2)(a)20 is
satisfied if the owner simply contracts with any person who
operates the vehicle specifically to provide that the operator’s
insurance will apply. But Enterprise’s suggested interpretation
is contrary to our interpretation of a vehicle owner’s duty to
“maintain” security under prior versions of the Financial
Responsibility Act.21 And it would be at odds with the statute’s

21 (...continued)
“‘[e]very resident owner of a motor vehicle shall maintain the
security [required by statute] in effect continuously throughout
the registration period of the motor vehicle.’” (emphasis added)
(quoting Utah Code Ann. § 31-41-4(1) (1953), repealed by Ch. 242,
§ 58, 1985 Utah Laws)); Chambers, 878 P.2d at 1166-67 (analyzing
an older version of the statute providing that “‘[e]very resident
owner of a motor vehicle shall maintain owner’s or operator’s
security in effect throughout the registration period of the
motor vehicle” and stating that “[t]he express language of and
the purpose behind Utah’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility
Act places liability on the self-insurer, as an insurer, to pay
certain benefits on behalf of permissive users of its vehicles
who injure third parties.’” (emphasis added) (quoting Utah Code
Ann. § 41-12a-301(2)(a) (1993)); Lane v. Honeywell, Inc., 663 F.
Supp. 370, 375 (D. Utah 1987) (“Public policy as expressed in
Utah law is that self-insurers must provide security for damages
inflicted by themselves, and by permissive users of their
vehicles.”).
22 See supra note 20; Speros v. Fricke, 2004 UT 69, ¶ 42, 98
P.3d 28.
23 2004 UT 69.
24 Id. ¶ 42.
25 Id.
7 No. 20050583
purpose of placing the responsibility to insure a vehicle on the
person defined as the vehicle’s owner under section 41-12a-
103(8).22 In Speros v. Fricke23, we described the Financial
Responsibility Act as “a comprehensive statutory scheme mandating
minimum liability coverage for motor vehicles.”24 Moreover, we
stated that “[t]his legislative enactment reflects a public
policy requiring vehicle owners to carry a minimum level of
liability coverage to protect innocent victims of automobile
accidents.”25 Thus, the history and language of the owner’s duty
to maintain security lead us to conclude that this duty is
nondelegable.
¶14 This conclusion is further reinforced by section 41-
12a-302. That section imposes criminal penalties on “[a]ny owner
of a motor vehicle on which owner’s or operator’s security is
required under Section 41-12a-301, who operates his vehicle or
permits it to be operated on a highway in this state without

26 Utah Code Ann. § 41-12a-302(1) (2005) (emphasis added).
27 Id. § 41-12a-302(2) (emphasis added).
28 Id. § 31A-22-302 (Supp. 2006).
No. 20050583 8
owner’s security being in effect.”26 It also imposes criminal
penalties on “any other person who operates a motor vehicle upon
a highway in Utah with the knowledge that the owner does not have
owner’s security in effect for the motor vehicle,” but it
provides an exception from the criminal penalty if the operator
has security that covers that person’s operation of the
vehicle.27 Section 41-12a-302(1) does not excuse a vehicle owner
from criminal liability when the vehicle is covered by insurance
provided by the operator of the vehicle. Therefore, we conclude
that the plain language of the statute imposes on the vehicle’s
owner the duty to provide liability insurance to cover a
vehicle’s operation on state roads and that this duty cannot be
satisfied by delegating the responsibility to the vehicle’s
operator.
II. SECTION 31A-22-314 DOES NOT EXCUSE RENTAL CAR COMPANIES FROM
THE DUTY TO INSURE THEIR RENTAL VEHICLES
¶15 Having described the motor vehicle owners’ duty to
insure their vehicles under section 41-12a-301 of the Financial
Responsibility Act, we now consider whether Utah Code section
31A-22-314 excuses rental car companies from this duty where
there is other valid or collectible insurance in an amount that
is greater than or equal to the $25,000 minimum liability
coverage requirements set forth in Utah Code section 31A-22-
304(1)(a). Enterprise argues that it does and that section 31A-
22-314 excuses Enterprise from providing insurance benefits to
Li’s Estate in this case because Li’s Estate has already settled
with Zhang’s insurer for more than $25,000. To address
Enterprise’s argument, we turn our attention from the broader
insurance requirements of section 41-12a-301 of the Financial
Responsibility Act to the details of that coverage as provided in
Title 31A, chapter 22, part III, which is entitled “Motor Vehicle
Insurance.”
¶16 Title 31A is connected with the Financial
Responsibility Act in Title 41 by Utah Code section 31A-22-302,
which lists the coverages that must be provided by “[e]very
policy of insurance or combination of policies purchased to
satisfy the owner’s or operator’s security requirement of Section
41-12a-301.”28 The two titles are also connected by Utah Code
section 41-12a-407(2), which requires self-insurers to pay

29 Id. § 41-12a-407(2) (2005).
30 Id. § 31A-22-302(1)(a) (Supp. 2006).
31 Id. § 31A-22-304(1)(a) (2005).
32 Id. § 31A-22-303(1)(a), (3), (7).
33 Id. § 31A-22-303(2).
34 Id. § 31A-22-303(1)(a)(ii)(A).
35 Id. § 31A-22-303(2)(a)(i), (ii).
36 See id. §§ 31A-22-311 to -314.
9 No. 20050583
insurance benefits “as would an insurer issuing a policy to the
self-funded person containing the coverages under Section 31A-22-
302.”29
¶17 Following either path, motor vehicle owners’ duty to
insure their motor vehicles includes an obligation to provide the
insurance coverages required by Utah Code section 31A-22-302,
including “motor vehicle liability coverage under Sections 31A-
22-303 and 31A-22-304.”30 Sections 31A-22-303 and -304 provide
further details. Section 31A-22-304 sets the minimum policy
limits for liability policies. It states, in part, that
“[p]olicies containing motor vehicle liability coverage may not
limit the insurer’s liability under that coverage below . . .
(1)(a) $25,000 because of liability for bodily injury to or death
of one person, arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in any
one accident.”31 Section 31A-22-303 specifies, among other
things, the persons who must be insured under liability
policies,32 and it contains rules for ordering insurance
coverages.33 It provides that where the insurance policy is an
owner’s policy, the policy must cover permissive users of the
motor vehicle.34 It also allows insurance policies to “provide
for the prorating of the insurance under that policy with other
valid and collectible insurance” and to “grant any lawful
coverage in addition to the required motor vehicle liability
coverage.”35
¶18 The provision cited by Enterprise, Utah Code section
31A-22-314, is located at the end of part III of chapter 22 and
is one of three sections specific to rental car companies.36
That section states as follows:

37 Id.
38 Li v. Zhang, 2005 UT App 246, ¶ 14, 120 P.3d 30.
No. 20050583 10
(1) A rental company shall provide its
renters with primary coverage meeting the
requirements of Title 41, Chapter 12a
Financial Responsibility of Motor Vehicle
Owners and Operators Act, unless there is
other valid or collectible insurance
coverage.
(2) All coverage shall include primary
defense costs and may not be waived.37
¶19 Enterprise asks us to hold that section 31A-22-314,
which is specific to rental car companies, overrides the more
general requirements of section 41-12a-301 by requiring that
rental car companies comply with the owners’ insurance
requirements of the Financial Responsibility Act only when there
is no “other valid or collectible insurance coverage” that meets
the $25,000 minimum liability coverage requirement in section
31A-22-304(1)(a). Li’s Estate counters that Enterprise misreads
section 31A-22-314 by ignoring the Legislature’s use of the term
“primary” to designate the type of coverage that is required by
this section and by reading the phrase “other valid and
collectible insurance” to incorporate the $25,000 minimum
coverage requirement. Li’s Estate contends that section 31A-22-
314 does no more than to first impose an additional requirement
that the coverage required of rental car companies be “primary
coverage” and then to remove that requirement when “there is
other valid or collectible insurance coverage.”
¶20 The court of appeals followed the interpretation
offered by Li’s Estate, concluding that “Utah Code section 31A-
22-314 does not relieve car rental companies of the statutory
duty to provide insurance coverage, even when other available
coverage meets the minimum statutory requirements,” but it went
beyond the plain language of the statute to reach this
conclusion.38 We agree with the interpretation adopted by the
court of appeals, but we determine that this interpretation is
evident from the plain language of section 31A-22-314 in light of
the larger structure and purpose of the Financial Responsibility
Act.

39 Arredondo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 2001 UT 29,
¶ 12, 24 P.3d 928 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
40 See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Comm. Union Assurance,
606 P.2d 1206, 1207 (Utah 1980); Wright v. Brown, 574 P.2d 1154,
1154 (Utah 1978); Am. Cas. Co. v. Eagle Star Ins. Co., 568 P.2d
731 (Utah 1977); Univ. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 445 P.2d 772, 773 (Utah 1968) (Ellett, J., concurring);
Russell v. Paulson, 417 P.2d 658, 661-62 (Utah 1966); Nat’l
Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Group, 377 P.2d
786, 787 (Utah 1963); see also Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-303(2)(b)
(2005) (providing “(i) The liability insurance coverage of a
permissive user of a motor vehicle owned by a motor vehicle
business shall be primary coverage. (ii) The liability insurance
coverage of a motor vehicle business shall be secondary to the
liability insurance coverage of a permissive user . . . .”); id.
§ 31A-22-305(6)(c) (Supp. 2006) (“[Uninsured motorist c]overage
on a motor vehicle occupied at the time of an accident shall be
primary coverage, and the coverage elected by a person described
[in related subsections] shall be secondary coverage.”); id.
§ 31A-22-305(10)(b)(iv) (“Underinsured coverage on a motor
vehicle occupied at the time of an accident shall be primary
coverage, and the coverage elected by a person described [in
related subsections] shall be secondary coverage.”); id. § 31A-
22-309(4) (2005) (providing in the context of other personal
injury protection provisions that “[w]hen a person injured is
also an insured party under any other policy, including those
policies complying with this part, primary coverage is given by
the policy insuring the motor vehicle in use during the
accident”); Chambers v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 878 P.2d 1164, 1167
(continued...)
11 No. 20050583
A. The Legislature’s Use of the Term “Primary Coverage” in
Section 31A-22-314 Indicates that It Intended to Specify the
Position of Insurance Coverage Required of Rental Car Companies
in Relation to Other Insurance Coverages
¶21 As we have often stated, we “presume that the
legislature used each word [in a statute] advisedly and [we] give
effect to each term according to its ordinary and accepted
meaning.”39 In conducting a plain language interpretation of
section 31A-22-314, we must therefore attribute meaning to the
Legislature’s use of the word “primary” to modify “coverage.” In
this case, we note that the combined term “primary coverage” is a
well-established term of art that the Legislature and courts use
to refer to the proper ordering of insurance coverages when
multiple policies cover the same injury.40 Primary coverage

40 (...continued)
(Utah Ct. App. 1994) (holding under prior statutory scheme that
“[t]he general rule is that the car owner’s insurance is
considered to provide primary coverage and that of the particular
driver is considered to provide excess or secondary coverage”).
41 Black’s Law Dictionary 807 (7th ed. 1999).
42 Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-314(2) (2005).
No. 20050583 12
contrasts with coverage of a different order, such as “secondary”
(also referred to as “excess”) coverage. Black’s Law Dictionary
defines the synonymous term “primary insurance” as “[i]nsurance
that attaches immediately on the happening of a loss; insurance
that is not contingent on the exhaustion of an underlying policy.
Cf. excess insurance.”41
¶22 Given the consistent usage of the term “primary
coverage” in the context of Utah insurance law and the absence of
another equally plausible explanation for the legislature’s
inclusion of the word “primary” to modify “coverage” in section
31A-22-314, we will interpret the term “primary coverage” in
accordance with its ordinary and accepted meaning. Accordingly,
we interpret the first part of subsection 31A-22-314(1) to impose
a requirement that rental car companies provide insurance
“meeting the requirements of [the Financial Responsibility Act]”
that is “primary” in that it attaches immediately upon the
happening of a loss and is not contingent on the exhaustion of an
underlying policy. This requirement is in addition to the
baseline requirements imposed by the Financial Responsibility
Act. The second part of subsection 31A-22-314(1) then removes
the additional “primary coverage” requirement when “there is
other valid or collectible insurance.” Subsection 31A-22-314(2)
then imposes a requirement that “all coverage shall include
primary defense costs” regardless of whether there is other valid
or collectible insurance.42
B. Excusing Rental Car Companies from Complying with the
Financial Responsibility Act Would Be Contrary to
the Act’s Purpose
¶23 Enterprise next argues that we should interpret section
31A-22-314(1) to have two purposes: first, to impose a
requirement that the insurance provided by rental car companies
under the Financial Responsibility Act be “primary coverage” and,
second, to remove all insurance requirements imposed by the
Financial Responsibility Act when “there is other valid or
collectible insurance coverage.” However, this interpretation

13 No. 20050583
implausibly stretches the language of 31A-22-314 and would lead
to results inconsistent with the purpose of the Financial
Responsibility Act.
¶24 First, it seems unlikely that the Legislature would
choose to start the section by imposing a requirement on rental
car companies that is an addition to those imposed by the
Financial Responsibility Act and then take away both the extra
“primary coverage” requirement that it just imposed and all of
the other baseline requirements imposed on rental car companies
by the Financial Responsibility Act when there is “other valid or
collectible insurance.” It is more logically consistent to read
the statute as specifying that all the insurance required from
rental car companies under the Financial Responsibility Act is to
be primary “unless there is other valid or collectible
insurance.”
¶25 Second, excusing rental car companies from providing
coverage when there is other available coverage is contrary to
the language and purpose of the Financial Responsibility Act.
Unless we took the further step of implying minimum coverage
requirements into the “other valid or collectible insurance
language,” Enterprise’s interpretation would have the drastic
effect of excusing a whole class of motor vehicle owners from the
most basic requirements of the Financial Responsibility Act
without ensuring that similar coverage is available from another
source. Without minimum coverage requirements limiting what
constitutes “other valid or collectible insurance,” rental car
companies would be wholly excused from paying insurance benefits
even if the amount of the “other valid or collectible insurance”
was insufficient to meet the minimum insurance requirements set
by the Legislature. Such a result would undermine the
overarching purpose of the Financial Responsibility Act by
opening a hole in the safety net that requires every owner to
provide a minimum of $25,000 in liability coverage for bodily
injury to one person. If the Legislature intended section 31A-
22-314 to have such a drastic effect, we would expect the
Legislature to make a clear statement to that effect rather than
combining a complete escape clause for rental car companies with
a provision that is otherwise aimed at ordering insurance
obligations.
¶26 Enterprise avoids ascribing this unlikely
interpretation to section 31A-22-314 by assuming that the “other
valid or collectible insurance” language incorporates an implicit
requirement that the other coverage meet Utah’s minimum coverage
requirements. But in doing so, it ignores the plain language of
the statute, which does not appear to contemplate monetary
coverage requirements. Further, we note that by adding the

43 See id. § 31A-22-303(2)(a)(iii) (“A policy containing
motor vehicle liability coverage . . . may: . . . (iv) if issued
to a motor vehicle business, restrict coverage afforded to anyone
other than the motor vehicle business or its officers, agents, or
employees to the minimum limits under Section 31A-22-304, and to
those instances when there is no other valid and collectible
insurance with at least those limits, whether the other insurance
is primary, excess, or contingent.”).
44 Id. § 31A-22-301(2) (“‘Motor vehicle business’ means a
motor vehicle sales agency, repair shop, service station, storage
garage, or public parking place.”).
No. 20050583 14
$25,000 minimum requirement to the “other valid or collectible
insurance” language, Enterprise interprets section 31A-22-314 as
providing an “excess-escape” clause for rental car companies.
Enterprise’s interpretation would allow rental car companies to
pay only amounts that are in excess of the amount provided by the
operator of the vehicle but would cap that amount at the
statute’s minimum coverage limits, allowing rental car companies
to “escape” from covering any remaining liability.
¶27 We consider it unlikely that the Legislature intended
this result where it has clearly provided for excess-escape
clauses in other sections of Utah’s motor vehicle insurance
statutes. Notably, the Legislature has allowed “motor vehicle
businesses” to include excess-escape clauses in their insurance
policies when they loan their vehicles to permissive users not
employed by the business,43 but does not include rental car
companies in the definition of “motor vehicle business.”44 We
will not make an interpretive leap to reach a result that the
Legislature could have easily made explicit using language that
it has employed to benefit other classes of motor vehicle owners.
¶28 We consider it much more likely that the Legislature
intended section 31A-22-314 to do no more than specify the
priority of the insurance coverage and defense costs required of
rental car companies relative to the driver’s insurance and other
insurance that may be available to cover the same liabilities.
We hold that section 31A-22-314 first imposes a requirement that
all the coverage required of rental car companies by the
Financial Responsibility Act is to be primary coverage, and
removes that requirement when there is other “valid and
collectible insurance coverage.” It then imposes the primary
defense obligation on rental car companies regardless of whether
there is other valid or collectible insurance.

45 See id. § 31A-22-303(2).
46 Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-314 (2005).
47 Black’s Law Dictionary 807 (7th ed. 1999).
48 Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-314.
15 No. 20050583
¶29 Our interpretation does not, as Enterprise argues, read
into section 31A-22-314(1) a substantive requirement that
Enterprise provide “secondary coverage” when “primary coverage”
is not required. Because we interpret section 31A-22-314 to
speak only to the ordering of insurance coverages, the broader
coverage that is required of rental car companies is that
required of all motor vehicle owners by the Financial
Responsibility Act. The statutes defining the required coverage
contain rules for ordering coverages.45 To the extent section
31A-22-314 does not change the ordering rules, those rules apply
to rental car companies.
CONCLUSION
¶30 It is clear from the plain language of Utah Code
section 31A-22-314 and related statutes that the Legislature did
not intend the availability of other valid or collectible
insurance coverage to excuse rental car companies from
maintaining insurance coverage on their vehicles in accordance
with the requirements of Utah’s Financial Responsibility of Motor
Vehicle Owners and Operators Act. Rather, the plain language of
section 31A-22-314 directs that the coverage required of rental
car companies under the Financial Responsibility Act is to be
“primary coverage”46--coverage that “attaches immediately on the
happening of a loss” and “is not contingent on the exhaustion of
an underlying policy”47--unless there is “other valid or
collectible insurance coverage.”48 Where there is other valid or
collectible insurance, rental car companies are subject to the
same ordering rules under the Financial Responsibility Act as
other owners of motor vehicles. We therefore affirm the result
reached by the court of appeals.
---
¶31 Chief Justice Durham, Associate Chief Justice Wilkins,
Justice Parrish, and Justice Nehring concur in Justice Durrant’s
opinion.