author: PARRISH, Justice:

text:
    2003 UT 48
    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Lora GREEN and Marlene Murray, Defendants and Appellant.
    No. 20010316.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    Nov. 4, 2003.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 2003.

      Richard K. Glauser, Albert W. Gray, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
    L. Rich Humpherys, Charles M. Lyons, Salt Lake City, for defendants.
   PARRISH, Justice:

¶ 1 In this case, we consider whether Lora Green, who was severely injured in an automobile accident, is entitled to underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage despite having settled with a tortfeasor, Marlene Murray, in apparent violation of the terms of her auto insurance policies. At the time of the accident, Green held two auto insurance policies containing UIM coverage that were underwritten by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). After Green settled with Murray, State Farm brought an action seeking a declaration that State Farm was not obligated to pay Green under her UIM coverage.

¶2 The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm after finding there could be no genuine factual dispute that Green had violated the terms of her policies requiring her to obtain State Farm’s consent before settling with Murray. We uphold the district court’s finding on this question. However, we hold that State Farm may not deny UIM coverage to Green on the basis of her breach unless State Farm was actually prejudiced by Green’s settlement with Murray. We therefore reverse and remand for a determination of whether State Farm was prejudiced by the settlement. We also hold that if State Farm was not prejudiced by the settlement, Green is entitled to recover up to the applicable limits under both of her policies.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 3 Because this is an appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to State Farm, we view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to Green, and we give no deference to the trial court’s decision. See Arnold Indus. v. Love, 2002 UT 133, ¶ 11, 63 P.3d 721. We will affirm summary judgment if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” so that “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Utah R. Civ. P. 56(e).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Marlene Murray, a retired school cafeteria worker, is Lora Green’s mother. Green was a passenger in a 1987 Dodge pickup truck driven by Murray along a two-lane highway through Provo Canyon in July of 1995. Murray drove her truck into the oncoming lane of traffic, mistakenly believing the lane was meant for traffic moving in her direction. Murray’s truck then collided with a truck traveling in the opposite direction, which was driven by Lloyd Louder and was towing a boat.

¶ 5 Green was severely injured in the accident. She lost partial use of her arm, and the necessary treatments for her extensive injuries included skin grafts. The accident and Green’s injuries are further described in this court’s opinion in Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶¶ 2-4, 29 P.3d 638.

¶ 6 Green sued Louder, but a jury found that Louder was not liable for Green’s injuries in the accident. Id. at ¶ 11. Thus, Green’s primary source of insurance recovery for her injuries was the liability coverage held by Murray. See Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-305(9)(b) (1995) (“The named insured’s underinsured motorist coverage ... is secondary to the liability coverage of an owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle.”)- Murray’s liability insurance was underwritten by Horace Mann Insurance Company (“Horace Mann”) and contained a liability limit of just $25,000, a sum that was insufficient to compensate Green for her substantial injuries.

¶ 7 Green’s attorney, Jackson Howard, negotiated a settlement with Murray and Horace Mann for Murray’s $25,000 policy limit. Howard knew that Green might be able to recover further under the UIM coverage contained in her State Farm policies. However, a provision in those policies required Green to obtain State Farm’s consent prior to any settlement with Murray in order to preserve her UIM claim. That provision stated there would be no underinsured motorist coverage

FOR ANY INSURED WHO, WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT, SETTLES WITH ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION WHO MAY BE LIABLE FOR THE BODILY INJURY AND THEREBY IMPAIRS THE RIGHT TO RECOVER OUR PAYMENTS.

We will refer to this provision as the “consent to settle exclusion.”

¶ 8 Howard orally notified State Farm that Green wished to settle with Murray for her $25,000 policy limit, but Howard did not submit a written request to State Farm for permission to settle, nor did he provide State Farm with a written copy of the terms of the proposed settlement. In a letter dated November 6, 1995, Bonnie Markham, a claim specialist with State Farm, informed Howard’s office that State Farm required “verification” of the Horace Mann $25,000 policy limit along with Horace Mann’s offer to extend the limit and that State Farm needed to “conduct an assets check on Marlene Murray” before it would “authorize Ms. Green to sign any releases.”

¶ 9 Almost three months later, Howard had not provided the information requested by State Farm and State Farm had neither conducted the asset check on Murray nor given written consent to the settlement. Nevertheless, on February 16, 1996, Green, anxious to receive the $25,000 offered by Horace Mann to satisfy some of her mounting medical bills, entered into the settlement with Murray, releasing Murray from all claims arising out of the accident. After the settlement, State Farm brought this action in district court, arguing that Green’s breach of the consent to settle exclusion relieved State Farm of any obligation to pay Green’s UIM claim.

¶ 10 At the trial court, both parties moved for summary judgment. Following discovery, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm. The trial court held that the consent to settle exclusion was valid, that Green had violated the terms of the consent to settle exclusion, and that Green’s breach relieved State Farm of any liability to pay UIM benefits. Green appealed.

¶ 11 On appeal, Green argues that the trial court erred in upholding the validity of the consent to settle exclusion. Green further argues that, even if the exclusion is enforceable, the trial court nevertheless erred because there were factual disputes precluding summary judgment and because Green’s settlement with Murray did not actually impair State Farm’s right to recover against Murray.

DISCUSSION

I. THE CONSENT TO SETTLE EXCLUSION

¶ 12 We first address Green’s argument that the trial court erred in holding that State Farm was entitled to summary judgment due to Green’s breach of the consent to settle exclusion. Consideration of this argument requires a three-part analysis. First, we consider whether consent to settle exclusions like the one contained in Green’s policies with State Farm are valid under Utah law. If such provisions are valid, we then consider whether Green breached the terms of the exclusion. If so, we finally address whether Green’s breach was a material breach that relieves State Farm of any obligation to pay Green’s UIM claim.

A. Is the Consent to Settle Exclusion Enforceable?

¶ 13 Green argues that the consent to settle exclusion is unenforceable because it violates Utah public policy and is inconsistent with Utah’s statutory scheme for UIM coverage. State Farm argues that such provisions are, in fact, consistent with public policy and are therefore valid.

¶ 14 Consent to settle exclusions like the one in Green’s policies are intended to protect an insurer’s subrogation rights against a tortfeasor. When an insurer pays a claim for which a tortfeasor is liable, the insurer may step into the shoes of the victim and proceed against the tortfeasor for recovery of the payment it made to the victim. See Utah Code Ann. § 31A-21-108 (2001); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co., 912 P.2d 983, 985 (Utah 1996). Because a subrogation claim is derived from an injured party’s claim against a tortfeasor, any agreement between the injured party and the tortfeasor that releases the tortfeasor from liability may also foreclose the insurer’s subrogation rights. See Hill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 765 P.2d 864, 867 (Utah 1988) (holding that an insurer’s subrogation right was extinguished by the insured’s settlement with a tortfea-sor). A consent to settle exclusion in the UIM context is designed to prevent a victim and a solvent tortfeasor from shifting the tortfeasor’s obligation to pay the victim’s damages to the victim’s UIM provider.

¶ 15 Green argues that the consent to settle exclusion is unenforceable under Utah law because it is inconsistent with Utah’s statutory scheme of mandatory UIM coverage. See Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-302(l) (1995). By vesting the insurer with the ability to deny approval of proposed settlements, Green asserts that consent to settle exclusions give the insurer, rather than the victim, control of litigation between the tort-feasor and the victim. According to Green, this frustrates the statute’s goal of making recovery available for victims of underin-sured motorists because it allows the insurer to withhold consent to settle, thereby eliminating the insurer’s obligation to pay UIM claims or forcing a victim to continue litigating even when the victim’s interests would best be served by accepting a proposed settlement.

¶ 16 We conclude that the consent to settle exclusion is enforceable. At the outset, we note that consumers may opt out of the otherwise required UIM coverage pursuant to sections 31A-22-302(l)(c) and 31A-22-305(9)(c) of the Utah Code. Where the statutory scheme allows consumers the option of refusing coverage altogether, it is difficult to see how a policy exclusion that simply attaches conditions to coverage could be unenforceable as against public policy.

¶ 17 Our conclusion that the consent to settle exclusion is valid is consistent with our holding in the similar context of uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage. In Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 743 P.2d 1227, 1228 (Utah 1987), we held that an exclusion to UM coverage did not violate public policy. In so holding, we relied on the fact that consumers could opt out of UM coverage and on the statutory language that did not evidence an intent to require insurers to offer UM coverage without conditions or exclusions. These reasons apply with equal force to the UIM statutory scheme.

¶ 18 While Green’s concerns about an insurer exercising control over litigation to the detriment of its insureds are legitimate, the insurer also has a legitimate interest in preventing collusive settlements that would foreclose its right to recover from a solvent tortfeasor through subrogation. Absent a consent to settle exclusion, a victim and a tortfeasor might collude in an attempt to shield the tortfeasor from paying the victim’s damages, and the victim would instead attempt to recover exclusively from his or her insurer. Insurance consumers also have an interest in preventing such collusion. By preventing some instances of insurance fraud, the widespread use of consent to settle exclusions should, in theory, reduce premiums.

¶ 19 We also find it relevant that an insurer is subject to a duty to act in good faith. See Beck v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 701 P.2d 795, 801 (Utah 1985). Such a duty requires that the insurer respond promptly and reasonably to an insured’s request for consent to a proposed settlement. In other words, consent to settle exclusions may not be interpreted so as to grant an insurer unfettered discretion over whether its insured will be covered, nor may they be interpreted to cede to the insurer complete control over a victim’s claim against an un-derinsured tortfeasor. Indeed, i*ecent legislation requires that an insurer respond within five business days to notification that “all liability insurers have tendered their liability policy limits” by paying an amount equal to the tendered policy limits or forfeit its sub-rogation rights. Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-305(12) (2001).

¶ 20 In summary, we conclude that public policy interests do not weigh so heavily against the consent to settle exclusion that we should hold such clauses generally unenforceable. Such exclusions operate to protect an insurer’s interest in subrogated recovery and, with it, the public’s interest in lower premiums. Moreover, both the statutory scheme and the insurer’s common law duties provide some protection to the consumer from an insurer who seeks to control its insured’s claims against a tortfeasor to the detriment of its insured. Accordingly, we decline to adopt a rule invalidating consent to settle exclusions.

B. Did Green Breach the Terms of the Consent to Settle Exclusion in this Case?

¶21 Green argues that the district court erred in finding that she breached the terms of the consent to settle exclusion contained in her State Farm policies. First, Green asserts that the consent to settle exclusion does not apply to this case because State Farm’s subrogation right had not matured at the time of Green’s settlement with Murray. Second, Green argues that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether she breached the terms of the consent to settle exclusion in this case so as to make summary judgment improper. Specifically, Green argues that State Farm- was presented with a meaningful opportunity to consent to the settlement and failed to respond. We address each argument in turn.

1. Was State Farm’s Right to Subrogation Mature?

¶ 22 Green argues that the language of her State Farm policies permits her to recover UIM benefits despite her breach of the consent to settle exclusion because State Farm’s subrogation rights were not mature at the time of her settlement with Murray. The exclusion bars coverage for any insured who, without State Farm’s consent, settles with a tortfeasor “and thereby impairs [State Farm’s] right to recover [its] payments.” Green asserts that because State Farm had not paid any UIM benefits to Green by the time of her settlement with Murray, State Farm had no vested right to recover its payments and thus there could be no impairment of that right. Green further argues that the provision is at the very least ambiguous and that we should construe ambiguous provisions in insurance policies against the insurer pursuant to L.D.S. Hospital v. Capitol Life Insurance Co., 765 P.2d 857, 858 (Utah 1988).

¶ 23 We acknowledge that an insured is entitled to the broadest protection reasonably understood to be provided by the policy. Fuller v. Dir. of Fin., 694 P.2d 1045, 1047 (Utah 1985). Nevertheless, we do not think a reasonable person would read the consent to settle exclusion in the manner urged by Green. Green’s interpretation of the policy language suggests that a right that has not yet matured cannot be impaired. We disagree. A right that can be exercised only upon the occurrence of certain conditions is not without value. Moreover, that value can be extinguished by impairing the ability to exercise the right upon the occurrence of those conditions.

¶ 24 We are also persuaded that the inter-pi'etation Green urges is incorrect because it would render the consent to settle exclusion meaningless. The purpose of the exclusion is to prevent a victim and a solvent tortfeasor from entering into a non-arm’s-length settlement that releases the tortfeasor from all liability, thereby shifting the obligation to pay the victim’s damages to the UIM carrier. Were we to accept Green’s suggested interpretation, insureds and tortfeasors would be able to enter into collusive settlements with impunity so long as they did so before the insurance carrier had paid UIM benefits. We decline Green’s invitation to interpret the policy in this manner.

2. Was State Farm Presented with a Meaningful Opportunity to Approve the Settlement?

¶ 25 Green argues that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because State Farm had a meaningful opportunity to approve the settlement and unreasonably refused to do so. Green asserts that her attorney orally notified State Farm that Murray’s insurer had offered the $25,000 policy limit and that Green desired to accept that offer. State Farm responded with a letter requesting verification of the offer and indicating that it needed to conduct a check of Murray’s assets. Several months then elapsed before Green actually consummated the settlement. Green contends that this was ample time for State Farm to conduct an asset check and authorize the settlement. She argues that State Farm’s delay in conducting the asset check should preclude State Farm from using its need for the information as a reasonable basis for withholding consent to the settlement.

¶ 26 We hold that it was reasonable for State Farm to expect that Green’s attorney would respond to State Farm’s request for written verification of Murray’s policy limits and proposed settlement offer. Because Green’s attorney never responded to State Farm’s request, the trial court correctly held that there could be no factual basis for concluding that State Farm was presented with a meaningful opportunity to consent. We therefore uphold the trial court’s conclusion that Green breached the terms of the consent to settle exclusion when she entered into the settlement with Murray.

C. Was Green’s Breach of the Consent to Settle Exclusion Material?

¶ 27 Having held the consent to settle exclusion enforceable and having concluded that Green breached the exclusion, we now address whether the breach was a material breach relieving State Farm of its obligation to pay benefits under the UIM policy or an immaterial breach that does not void coverage.

¶28 Before we may determine whether Green’s breach of the exclusion was material, we must ascertain the standard to be used in determining materiality. Under the view espoused by State Farm, Green’s breach would be deemed material so long as it impaired State Farm’s theoretical right to recover from Murray. Green’s breach would then be material regardless of the extent of Green’s injuries, Murray’s assets, or the strength of Green’s tort claim against Murray.

¶ 29 According to the argument espoused by Green, her breach would be material only if State Farm can prove that the settlement actually prejudiced its ability to recover from Murray through subrogation. In other words, if State Farm could not have recovered from Murray in any event, then Green’s breach of the consent to settle exclusion did not prejudice State Farm and should not result in the forfeiture of insurance coverage.

¶ 30 The actual prejudice requirement urged by Green has been widely adopted by state courts confronted with facts similar to those presented here. See 3 Alan I. Widiss, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance § 43.5, at 512 (2d ed. 1998) (“There is now a significant body of judicial precedents for the proposition that in order to justify foreclosing an insured’s right to indemnification from an otherwise applicable underinsured motorist insurance coverage, an insurer must show that it was prejudiced by the settlement of the tort claim.”); see also Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bough, 310 Ark. 21, 834 S.W.2d 637, 640 (1992); Sutch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 672 A.2d 17, 21-22 (Del.1995); Southeastern Fid. Ins. Co. v. Earnest, 395 So.2d 230, 230-31 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Taylor v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 90 Hawai'i 302, 978 P.2d 740, 749 (1999); Bantz v. Bongard, 124 Idaho 780, 864 P.2d 618, 623-24 (1993); Kapadia v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 418 N.W.2d 848, 852 (Iowa 1988); Greenvall v. Maine Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 715 A.2d 949, 954 (Me.1998); MacInnis v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 403 Mass. 220, 526 N.E.2d 1255, 1258-59 (1988); Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumann, 459 N.W.2d 923, 926-27 (Minn.1990); Tegtmeyer v. Snellen, 791 S.W.2d 737, 740 (Mo.Ct.App.1990); Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 279 Mont. 291, 927 P.2d 1002, 1005 (1996); Silvers v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 324 N.C. 289, 378 S.E.2d 21, 26-28 (1989); Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 186, 781 N.E.2d 927, 946-47 (2002); Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds, 875 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex.1994); Thiringer v. Am. Motors Ins. Co., 91 Wash.2d 215, 588 P.2d 191, 193 (1978); Kronjaeger v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co., 200 W.Va. 570, 490 S.E.2d 657, 674 (1997); Ranes v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 219 Wis.2d 49, 580 N.W.2d 197, 203 (1998).

¶ 31 We agree with Green and join those courts holding that the breach of a consent to settle exclusion is material only if it results in actual, rather than theoretical, impairment of an insurer’s ability to recover through subrogation. The purpose of UIM coverage is to provide a source of indemnification for accident victims when the tortfea-sor does not have adequate coverage. Denying coverage to an accident victim on the basis of a merely technical breach that has no effect on the insurer’s ability to recover through subrogation does not further that purpose.

¶ 32 The actual prejudice requirement that we adopt is consistent with the legislative scheme. Utah law prevents an insurance company from relying on certain technical policy breaches as a basis for denying coverage. Generally, if an insured in Utah fails to provide notice or proof of loss to its insurer as required by the terms of an insurance policy, the insurer may not deny recovery to the insured unless the insurer was prejudiced by the failure. Utah Code Ann. § 31A-21-312(2) (2001). There is no reason why the rule should be harsher to the insured in the context of a settlement that could affect an insurer’s subrogation rights. The actual prejudice rule strikes an appropriate balance between protecting an insurer’s interests and avoiding forfeiture of coverage when an insurer has not been harmed.

¶ 33 In order to show actual prejudice, it is not sufficient for an insurer to show that its right of subrogation has been extinguished. Rather, the insurer may deny coverage only if it would have had a realistic possibility of recovering from the tortfeasor had its subrogation right not been foreclosed by the insured’s settlement with the tortfea-sor. This requires an assessment of factors such as the assets held by the tortfeasor, the strength of the insurer’s subrogation claim (i.e., the strength of the underlying tort claim), the expenses and risks of litigating the insured’s cause of action, and the extent of the victim’s damage.

¶ 34 The extent of the victim’s damage is relevant because an insurer cannot assert its equitable subrogation rights against a tortfeasor unless its insured has been made whole. Hill v. State Fam Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 765 P.2d 864, 866 (Utah 1988). In this case, State Farm argues that allowing it to subrogate against Murray has nothing to do with Green’s being made whole because the “made whole” doctrine is an equitable principle applied in cases involving equitable subrogation and State Farm’s claim against Murray is one of contractual subrogation arising under the terms of its policies. While the doctrine of equitable subrogation generally can be modified by contract, we previously have held that “in the absence of express [contractual] terms to the contrary, the insured must be made whole before the insurer is entitled to be reimbursed from a recovery from the third-party tort-feasor.” Id.

¶ 35 We find the language of Green’s policies with State Farm insufficiently clear to remove this case from the general rule that the victim must be made whole before the insurer can recover from the tortfeasor. Green’s policies do contain general language stating that State Farm is entitled to recover “to the extent of [its] payments, [from] the proceeds of any settlement the insured recovers from any party liable for the bodily injury.” This general language, however, is insufficient to explicitly inform policyholders that State Farm is entitled to recover its UIM payments from the personal assets of a liable party even though the assets of the liable party are insufficient to fully compensate the injured victim.

¶36 If an insurer seeks to assert priority over an uncompensated victim in recovering its UIM payments from the assets of a tortfeasor, the policy provisions must clearly and unambiguously put the policyholder on notice of that fact. Hill, 765 P.2d at 866. We hold that State Farm’s policies with Green do not contain express contractual terms sufficient to alter the general rule that an insurer cannot assert its subrogation rights against a tortfeasor unless its insured has been made whole. Accordingly, in order to determine whether State Farm was prejudiced by Green’s settlement with Murray, it will be necessary to consider whether Murray had assets sufficient to fully compensate Green for her damages.

¶ 37 Because the trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm based on theoretical, rather than actual, prejudice, the record is insufficient for us to determine whether there were undisputed material facts establishing that State Farm was actually prejudiced by Green’s failure to obtain its consent to her settlement with Murray. For this reason, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the trier of fact should evaluate the strength of Green’s claim against Murray, the costs and risks of litigation, and the issue of whether Murray would have had sufficient reachable assets to reimburse State Farm for a meaningful portion of its UIM payments after fully compensating Green for her injuries. If not, State Farm was not prejudiced by Green’s settlement with Murray and Green is entitled to recover UIM benefits from State Farm.

II. STACKING

¶ 38 At the time of her accident, Green carried two separate State Farm policies, each providing $100,000 of UIM coverage. If State Farm was not prejudiced by Green’s settlement with Murray, the question arises whether Green is entitled to recover up to the limits under both of her policies or under just one.

¶ 39 The general question of recovery under more than one insurance policy or coverage is treated in case law and commentary under the rubric of “stacking.” To recover under more than one policy (or more than one coverage within a policy) for a single accident is to “stack” policy limits. Recovery for a single incident of loss up to the limits of coverage under more than one insurance policy is “interpolicy stacking.” Recovery for a single incident of loss up to the limits of more than one coverage within a single policy (e.g., separate coverage limits for multiple vehicles under a single auto insurance policy) is “in-trapolicy stacking.” Provisions in insurance policies attempting to forbid stacking are often referred to as “anti-stacking” provisions.

¶40 An anti-stacking provision effectively renders every overlapping policy after the first one (or the one with the highest limits) purchased by a consumer worth less than the first. To illustrate, consider a pedestrian who is struck and injured by an underinsured motorist. The pedestrian owns two auto insurance policies, each of which covers the victim if she is injured as a pedestrian by an underinsured motorist, and each of which purports to provide the same dollar amount of underinsured motorist coverage, except for anti-stacking clauses found in both policies. The anti-stacking clauses permit recovery under only one of the policies. In fairness, the premium paid for the second of the policies should be discounted to reflect the fact that the insured is permitted to recover only under the first policy. Otherwise, the insurer is using the anti-stacking provisions in the policies to avoid providing coverage for which the consumer is paying.

¶41 In considering whether and under what circumstances to enforce anti-stacking provisions in insurance policies, many courts and commentators have considered the premium payments made by the insured. See, e.g., Kent v. Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co., 226 Conn. 427, 627 A.2d 1319, 1322 (1993) (“[W]e have found stacking to be available when the insured has paid separate premiums for the underinsured motorist coverage afforded to each vehicle.”); Yeager v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 335 N.W.2d 733, 736-37 (Minn.1983) (finding premium structure relevant in permitting an insured to stack UIM coverages); Patterson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 1993 WL 405846, *8, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14055, at *28 (E.D.Pa.1993) (applying Pennsylvania law) (“The payment of separate premiums is of paramount importance in the stacking context.”); West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Playman, 171 Wis.2d 37, 489 N.W.2d 915, 916-17 (1992) (permitting “an insured who pays separate premiums for each vehicle under a single insurance policy” to stack coverages).

¶ 42 In general, purchasers of insurance ought not to be denied coverage for which they have paid premiums. See, e.g., U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Sandt, 854 P.2d 519, 525 (Utah 1993) (holding that an interpretation of an insurance policy under which the insurer would “never have to pay the full amount of the purchased coverage” would be “unconscionable”). In fact, some courts have taken the view that an insurer’s use of an anti-stacking clause without an appropriate premium discount is unconscionable. See, e.g., Abramson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 76 F.3d 304, 305 (9th Cir.1996) (“Applying Hawaii law, it is clear that anti-stacking provisions in personal automobile insurance policies are not permitted to defeat fair compensation for persons injured by underinsured motorists-”); Rodriguez v. Windsor Ins. Co., 118 N.M. 127, 879 P.2d 759 (1994) (expressing “a strong judicial policy ... favoring stacking” so that victims of uninsured or underinsured motorists receive the level of compensation for which they have paid); see also Nielsen v. O’Reilly, 848 P.2d 664, 672 (Utah 1992) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (“It would be unconscionable to permit an insurance company offering statutorily required coverage to collect premiums for it with one hand and allow it to take the coverage away with the other by using a self-devised ‘other insurance’ limitation.” (citation and quotation omitted)).

¶43 Despite the fact that prohibitions against stacking render certain coverages meaningless, there are many anti-stacking provisions in insurance policies, as well as state statutes that forbid stacking, without regard to how much an insured has paid for insurance protection. Accordingly, we now analyze Green’s particular policies in light of the Utah statutory scheme to determine whether Green is entitled to stack the UIM coverages contained in her two State Farm policies.

¶44 Each of Green’s policies contains an anti-stacking provision. However, the Utah legislature has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme governing stacking in the context of UIM coverage. See Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-305(10) (1995). Because the statute defines the circumstances under which stacking is available, the anti-stacking provisions in Green’s policies have been preempted. Therefore, the question of whether Green is allowed to stack her coverage presents a matter of statutory, rather than contract, interpretation. A matter of statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review on appeal for correctness. State v. Schofield, 2002 UT 132, ¶ 6, 63 P.3d 667.

¶ 45 Utah Code section 31A-22-305, as it existed on July 13, 1995, the day of Green’s accident, is the applicable law. That statute describes UIM insurance as additional or “secondary” insurance available when the liability or “primary” insurance recovery available to an accident victim is “insufficient ... to compensate fully the injured party for all special and general damages.” Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-305(8)(a) (1995). It provides that UIM coverage cannot be “set off against the [applicable] liability coverage,” but is designed to be “added to, combined with, or stacked upon the [applicable] liability coverage.” Id. § 31A-22-305(9)(b). Thus, there is no question that Green is entitled to stack any available UIM coverage on the $25,000 recovery she received from Murray’s liability policy.

¶ 46 The UIM statute also addresses the circumstances under which an insured is entitled to stack UIM coverage. The statute creates the general rule that a victim of an accident must recover any UIM coverage from the policy or policies covering the vehicle in which the victim was injured. A victim also is entitled to stack UIM coverage from other policies in certain situations specified in the statute. Id. § 31A-22-305(10)(c)(i). These include the situation where an insured is “injured while occupying or using a motor vehicle that is not owned by, furnished, or available for the regular use” of the insured, her spouse, or a resident relative. Id. § 31A-22-305(10)(c)(i)(B). In such a situation, the statute provides that the insured is “also” entitled to recover UIM benefits under “any other policy” in which she is described as a covered person. Id. § 31A-22-305(10)(c)(i). The statute provides, however, that a covered person “is entitled to the highest limits of underinsured motorist coverage afforded for any one vehicle that the covered person is the named insured.” Id. § 31A-22-305(10)(c)(iii).

¶ 47 We now apply the statutory language to the facts of this case. Because Green was injured while riding in her mother’s car, which the parties agree was not “furnished, or available for” Green’s regular use, subsection (10)(c)(i)(B) permits Green to stack her UIM coverage under “any other policy” in which she is described as a “covered person.” Id. § 31A-22-305(10)(c)(i)(B). Green is defined as a “covered person” under both of her policies with State Farm.

¶48 Despite the language of subsection (10)(c)(i)(B), State Farm argues that Green is not entitled to stack her coverages. State Farm bases its argument on the seemingly contradictory provision of the statute, which limits a covered person’s recovery “to the highest limits of underinsured motorist coverage afforded for any one vehicle” on which the covered person is a named insured. Id. § 31 A. — 22—305(10)(c)(iii).

¶ 49 These confusing and arguably contradictory provisions are subject to two possible interpretations. One possible interpretation is that Green is barred from both interpolicy and intrapolicy stacking — i.e., that Green’s right to recover under “any other policy” in subsection (10)(c)(i) is swallowed up by language restricting her coverage to the highest limit afforded for “any one vehicle” under subsection (10)(c)(iii). Under this interpretation, Green must choose one of her insured vehicles and may recover up to the limits applicable to that vehicle only, despite the fact that subsection (10)(c)(i) says she may also recover under “any other policy” in which she is a named insured.

¶ 50 The other possible interpretation of the two provisions is that the language limiting Green to the highest coverage for any one vehicle under subsection (10)(c)(i) is to be applied separately to each of the policies in which Green is listed as a named insured, rather than to all of Green’s policies in the aggregate. Under this interpretation, Green would be entitled to recover up to the highest limit afforded for “any one vehicle” under each policy in which she is listed as a named insured. In short, under this interpretation, interpolicy stacking would be allowed, while intrapolicy stacking would be prohibited.

¶ 51 We hold that the proper interpretation of these ambiguous provisions is one that allows interpolicy stacking, thereby allowing Green to recover up to the limits of her UIM coverage for any one vehicle under both of her policies. We reach this conclusion for two reasons.

¶ 52 First, we are persuaded by the legislature’s choice of language in subsection (10)(c)(i). Without limitation, that language states that, in addition to primary UIM coverage, an insured is also entitled to recover under “any other policy” in which the insured is listed as a covered person. Had the legislature intended to limit an insured’s recovery to a single policy, regardless of how many policies were owned by the insured (that is, to prohibit interpolicy stacking), then subsection (10)(c)(i) would have contained language of limitation, i.e., language limiting additional recovery to “one other policy” or “any one other policy.”

¶ 53 We also are persuaded by the fact that interpreting the statutory language to prohibit both interpolicy and intrapolicy stacking would create an unnecessary conflict between the two statutory provisions at issue. In fact, such an interpretation would render meaningless the portion of section 31A-22-305(10)(c)(i) allowing recovery under “any other policy.” On the other hand, an interpretation allowing interpolicy stacking based on the provisions of subsection (10)(c)(i), but prohibiting intrapolicy stacking based on subsection (10)(c)(iii), harmonizes both provisions. We have long recognized that, if possible, statutes should be construed in such a way as to avoid statutory conflict and render all statutory provisions relevant and meaningful. See State v. Hunt, 906 P.2d 311, 312 (Utah 1995) (“[A]ny interpretation which renders parts or words in a statute inoperative or superfluous is to be avoided.” (citations omitted)); Millett v. Clark Clinic Corp., 609 P.2d 934, 936 (Utah 1980) (“[Statutory enactments are to be so construed as to render all parts thereof relevant and meaningful, and that interpretations are to be avoided which render some part of a provision nonsensical or absurd.” (citations omitted)).

CONCLUSION

1154 The consent to settle exclusion in Green’s State Farm policies is generally enforceable, but State Farm may not use a breach of that exclusion to deny UIM coverage unless it was actually prejudiced by the breach. The question of actual prejudice presents factual issues for which we remand to the district court. If, on remand, it is determined that State Farm was not actually prejudiced by Green’s settlement with Murray, then we hold that Green is entitled to recover up to the highest limits of her UIM coverage for any one vehicle under both of her policies with State Farm. Accordingly, we vacate the summary judgment in favor of State Farm entered by the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 55 Chief Justice DURHAM, Associate Chief Justice DURRANT, Justice WILKINS, and Judge NEHRING concur in Justice PARRISH’s opinion.

¶56 Justice RUSSON did not participate herein; District Judge RONALD E. NEHR-ING sat.

      .While the trial court found that Green's settlement with Murray terminated Murray's “liability and potential liability” to State Farm, a settlement and release does not always foreclose sub-rogation rights. "[A] settlement between an injured party and a tortfeasor who has [actual or constructive] knowledge of the subrogation rights of the injured party’s insurer does not destroy the subrogation claim of the injured party's insurer.” Educators Mut. Ins. Ass'n v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 890 P.2d 1029, 1031 (Utah 1995) (citing Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Barnes, 29 Utah 2d 101, 505 P.2d 783, 787 (1972)).

      . We consider the underinsured motorist statutes as they existed in 1995, when Green's accident occurred, unless otherwise indicated.

      . The UIM waiver provision is currently found at Utah Code Ann. section 3 lA-22-305(9)(b).

      . Because this particular statute was not adopted until well after Green's accident, the requirements it imposes are not applicable in this case. Nevertheless, it is relevant to our analysis inasmuch as it weighs against Green's argument that consent to settle exclusions frustrate the UIM statutory scheme and the public policy interests underlying it.

      . We express no opinion as to whether such a provision would withstand judicial scrutiny or be found unenforceable based on the argument that it is inconsistent with the underlying purpose of Utah's statutory scheme for UIM coverage.

      . In Nielsen v. O'Reilly, 848 P.2d 664 (Utah 1992), and Martin v. Christensen, 22 Utah 2d 415, 454 P.2d 294 (1969), this court permitted insurers to enforce anti-stacking clauses in their policies in the context of uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverages. These cases are inapposite because they were decided before the legislature enacted a statute addressing the stacking issue.

      . The statutory scheme found in Utah Code Ann. section 31A-22-305 has been substantially overhauled since Green's accident. Accordingly, our interpretation of the statute as it existed in 1995 does not control stacking disputes arising under the statute as it exists today.

      . At the time of Green’s accident, the particular statutory provisions addressing stacking in the context of UIM claims provided:
      (10)(a) Underinsured motorist coverage under this section applies to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death of an insured while occupying or using a motor vehicle owned by, furnished, or available for the regular use of the insured, a resident spouse, or resident relative of the insured, only if the motor vehicle is described in the policy under which a claim is made, or if the motor vehicle is a newly acquired or replacement vehicle covered under the terms of the policy. Except as provided in Subsection (10), a covered person injured in a vehicle described in a policy that includes un-derinsured motorist benefits may not elect to collect underinsured motorist coverage benefits from any other motor vehicle insurance policy under which he is a named insured.
      (b)(i) The limit of liability for underinsured motorist coverage for two or more motor vehicles may not be added together, combined, or stacked to determine the limit of insurance coverage available to an injured person for any one accident.
      (ii) Subsection (b)(i) applies to all persons except a covered person as defined under subsection (c)(i)(B).
      (iii) Coverage on a motor vehicle occupied at the time of an accident shall be primary coverage, and the coverage elected by a person described under Subsections (l)(a) and
      (b) shall be secondary coverage.
      (c)(i) Each of the following persons may also recover underinsured motorist coverage benefits under any other policy in which they are described as a "covered person” as defined under Subsection (1):
      (A) a covered person injured as a pedestrian by an underinsured motor vehicle; or
      (B) a covered person injured while occupying or using a motor vehicle that is not owned by, furnished, or available for the regular use of the covered person, the covered person's resident spouse, or the covered person’s resident relative.
      (ii) This coverage shall only be available as a secondary source of coverage.
      (iii) A covered person as defined under Subsection (c)(i)(B) is entitled to the highest limits of underinsured motorist coverage afforded for any one vehicle that the covered person is the named insured or an insured family member.
      (iv) This coverage shall be in addition to the coverage on the vehicle the covered person is occupying.
      (v) Neither the primary nor the secondary coverage may be set off against the other.
      (d) A covered injured person is not barred against making subsequent elections if recovery is unavailable under previous elections.
      Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-305 (1995).

      . The term "covered persons” includes:
      (a) the named insured;
      (b) persons related to the named insured by blood, marriage, adoption, or guardianship, who are residents of the named insured's household, including those who usually make their home in the same household but temporarily live elsewhere;
      (c) any person occupying or using a motor vehicle referred to in the policy or owned by a self-insurer; and
      (d)any person who is entitled to recover damages against the owner or operator of the uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury to or death of persons under Subsection (l)(a), (b), or (c).
      Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-305(l) (1995).

      . Indeed, the current statutory provision found at Utah Code Ann. section 31A-22-305(10)(b)(i) provides that a person in Green's position "may also recover benefits under any one other policy.” (Emphasis added.)


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: WILKINS, Justice:

license: Public Domain

text:
    2004 UT 9
    CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, and MP Ventures, L.C., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. PRINCIPAL FUNDING CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant.
    No. 20020203.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    Jan. 27, 2004.

      Ronald G. Russell, Jeffrey D. Stevens, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
    Steven W. Call, Michael D. Mayfield, Salt Lake City, for defendant.
   WILKINS, Justice:

¶ 1 Principal Funding Corporation (“PFC”) appeals the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Chase Manhattan Bank (“Chase”) and MP Ventures, L.C. (“MP Ventures”), declaring that PFC held no valid judgment lien against a certain parcel of real property and quieting title in the property in favor of MP Ventures. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 MP Ventures owns an interest in real property located on Lincoln Street in Salt Lake City (“subject property”). In 1994, the subject property was owned by Lan England. England became a judgment debtor in April of 1994 when a judgment was entered against him in Third District Court in the case of Lan C. England v. Eugene Horbach, et al., CM No. 930901471 CV (Third Dist. Ct. Apr. 18, 1994) (“Horbach Judgment”). In October of 1995, the court of appeals reversed the Horbach Judgment. England v. Horbach, 905 P.2d 301 (Utah Ct.App.1995). Language found in a footnote to the court’s opinion purported to “vacate the trial court’s judgment.” Id. at 302 n. 1. However, the court of appeals concluded its opinion by noting that it was “reversing] and remand[ing] for further action consistent with [its] opinion.” Id. at 305. Horbach timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this court in November of 1995. That petition was granted in February of 1996. Slightly over one year later, in May of 1997, the court of appeals’ decision was reversed by this court. England v. Horbach, 944 P.2d 340 (Utah 1997).

¶ 3 In May of 1996, while review of the court of appeals’ opinion was pending, England borrowed $500,000 from Option One Mortgage Corporation (“Option One”). As security for the loan, England granted a trust deed on the subject property in favor of Option One. Nearly four years after our decision in England v. Horbach, Scott Lundberg, the trustee of the Option One deed, filed a notice of default, conducted a non-judicial sale, and granted a trustee’s deed in favor of Chase, the purchaser at the sale. Chase is MP Ventures’ predecessor-in-interest to the subject property. PFC is the successor-in-interest to the Horbach Judgment.

¶ 4 Some time later, PFC directed the Salt Lake County Sheriff to conduct a sheriffs sale of the subject property in execution of the Horbach Judgment. Chase and MP Ventures instituted the present action seeking an injunction preventing the sale and a declaratory judgment quieting title in the subject property in favor of MP Ventures. The trial court ultimately granted Chase and MP Ventures the relief they sought.

¶ 5 The trial court held that the court of appeals’ decision in England v. Horbach vacated the Horbach Judgment and that Hor-baeh’s failure to request a stay of that vacation was fatal to its lien. Although it was later reinstated by this court, the trial court held that the judgment lien was junior to the trust deed, which was recorded during the pendency of the previous proceedings before this court. PFC appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 6 The existence and scope of a judgment lien is defined by statute. Utah Code Ann. § 78-22-1 (Supp.2003). Statutory questions are questions of law reviewed for correctness. Toone v. Weber County, 2002 UT 103, ¶ 4, 57 P.3d 1079.

II. EFFECT OF COURT OF APPEALS’ REVERSAL OF HORBACH JUDGMENT

¶ 7 Our resolution of this matter hinges on the effect of the court of appeals’ opinion and its remittitur in England. If the court of appeals’ opinion actually vacated the trial court’s judgment, the judgment lien held by PFC on the subject property would have been dissolved at the time of the trustee’s sale at which Chase acquired its title to the property. However, if the court of appeals’ opinion was not self-executing, PFC’s judgment lien continued to be effective and is superior to the trustee’s deed now held by MP Ventures. If, upon remittitur and the revesting of jurisdiction, the trial court failed to enter an order vacating the Horbach Judgment before this court granted certiora-ri — again depriving the trial court of jurisdiction — the judgment remained in effect.

¶ 8 The couid; of appeals’ opinion contemplated further action by the trial court. In its opinion in England, the court of appeals stated that it “vaeate[d] the trial court’s judgment based upon defendant’s counterclaim,” and reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court “for further action consistent with [its] opinion.” 905 P.2d at 302 n. 1, 305. Chase and MP Ventures essentially argue that the opinion’s language regarding the vacation of the trial court’s judgment effectively accomplished the vacation once remittitur was issued and PFC failed to obtain a stay. This position, although reasonable, misunderstands the nature of remand and remittitur, and is at odds with the court of appeals’ own language in England, which suggested further action by the trial court.

¶ 9 Remittitur is not an order of the appellate court, but merely gives the trial court such jurisdiction as it needs to implement the appellate court’s decision in the matter. 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 968 (1993). Re-mittitur is a formal revesting of jurisdiction with the trial court after appellate proceedings and is governed by the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Utah R.App. P. 36. At the time of the court of appeals’ reversal of the Horbach Judgment, our remittitur rule differed from the rule in effect today. In 1995, rule 36 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provided that the court of appeals was to issue its remittitur to the trial court “immediately after the expiration of the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari.” Id. at 36(a)(2) (1995). The 1995 rule also contained a provision allowing a party to request a stay of the issuance of remittitur to prevent further action by the trial court while the party’s petition for writ of certiora-ri was pending. Id. at 36(a)(3). Today’s rule, however, provides that a stay of remitti-tur is automatic upon the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari. Utah R.App. P. 36(a)(2) (2003). Our resolution of this case under the previous rule presents us with an opportunity to address the implications of remittitur.

¶ 10 Although other jurisdictions have processes similar to remittitur under our rules, not all jurisdictions give it the same effect. For instance, in Florida, remittitur has been viewed as a final judgment, with no further action required by the trial court to effectuate the opinion of the appellate court. Robbins v. Pfeiffer, 407 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (holding that a judgment affirmed on appeal was final upon remittitur). Illinois has followed a similar rule. Brandon v. Caisse, 172 Ill.App.3d 841, 122 Ill.Dec. 746, 527 N.E.2d 118, 120 (1988) (noting that appellate judgment is final when entered). Other courts have taken a different tack, opting to view remittitur as a mere revesting of jurisdiction with further action required by the trial court. Begley v. Vogler, 612 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Ky.1981); In re J.L.M., 234 Neb. 381, 451 N.W.2d 377, 386 (1990). Still another court has suggested that an unqualified reversal by an appellate court requires no further action by the trial court, but that a qualified reversal or a reversal with instructions does require further action. Puritan Leasing Co. v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, 76 Cal.App.3d 140, 142 Cal.Rptr. 676, 679-80 (1977). Multiple courts also recognize that an appellate court retains enough jurisdiction to compel a lower court’s compliance with the appellate decision through issuance of a writ of mandamus. Begley, 612 S.W.2d at 342; Curtis v. Nobles, 588 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex.Civ.App.1979).

¶ 11 Our past jurisprudence does not clearly identify the effect of remittitur in Utah. On one occasion this court announced that “[t]he judgment of the appellate court ... is not self-executing. It is certified or remitted back to the court from which the appeal was taken, for execution of the judgment.” State v. Johnson, 100 Utah 316, 114 P.2d 1034, 1037 (1941). This statement accurately, albeit incompletely, explains the effect of re-mittitur in Utah.

¶ 12 When an appellate court affirms the judgment of a trial court, no further order is needed from the trial court. Begley, 612 S.W.2d at 341-42. This is because the trial court’s original order merely remains intact. As a result, the trial court need not act for a valid order to be found in the record. However, a reversal or qualified af-firmance will almost always require farther action by the trial court. Id. This rule is subject to the appellate court’s exercise of its power under either the Utah Constitution or the Utah Code to fully and finally dispose of the matter. Utah Const. art. VIII, § 3; Utah Code Ann. § 78-2a-3(l)(a) (2002). In the event the appellate court elects to invoke this power, it will only do so expressly, noting specifically that no further action is required by the trial court. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, words in an opinion such as “we vacate” are not sufficient to render the case finally disposed of in the absence of a specific directive noting that the trial court need do nothing further upon re-mittitur. Thus, words such as “vacate” and “dismiss” are not terms of art when used in such a manner as to imply the court’s disposition of the matter; rather, they represent expressions of the appellate opinion to be read as the law of the case upon the revest-ing of jurisdiction in the trial court by remit-titur. Puritan, 142 Cal.Rptr. at 679-80.

¶ 13 The application of this rule is plain in this case. The court of appeals’ opinion at issue noted both that the judgment was vacated and that the court was remanding the matter “for further action consistent with [its] opinion.” England, 905 P.2d at 302 n. 1, 305. It is evident that the court of appeals did not intend for its opinion to finally dispose of the case. Rather, the court noted that further action was required. Because the trial court took no action to vacate its judgment, the judgment lien claimed by PFC against the subject property has remained in effect continuously since the judgment was initially entered by the trial court in 1994. It has priority over MP Ventures’ deed, which is based on a trust deed granted on the property in 1996.

CONCLUSION

¶ 14 We conclude that PFC holds a valid judgment lien against the subject property because the judgment upon which it is based has been in continuous effect since it was entered by the trial court in 1994. The court of appeals’ decision to vacate the Horbach Judgment was not effectuated by an order from the trial court prior to this court’s acceptance of Horbach’s petition for writ of certiorari and our ultimate reversal of the court of appeals’ opinion. We reverse and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 15 Chief Justice DURHAM, Justice NEHRING, Judge ORME, and Judge HANSEN concur in Justice Wilkins’ opinion.

¶ 16 Having disqualified themselves, Associate Chief Justice DURRANT and Justice PARRISH do not participate herein; Court of Appeals Judge GREGORY K. ORME and District Judge DARWIN C. HANSEN sat.

      . See, e.g., Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Ass’n v. Foothills Water Co., 942 P.2d 305, 307 (Utah 1996) ("The court of appeals erred in remitting the case before the time to seek certiorari had expired under the rules and erred again when it refused to recall its erroneously issued remittitur. The judgment of the district court is void because that court had no jurisdiction to enter a judgment while the case was still pending in the appellate courts. The district court judgment is vacated as void.”).


author: NEHRING, Justice:

text:
    2004 UT 15
    Helen LABELLE, Sheila Carlson, Linda Buckley, and Marilyn Phillips, individuals and as heirs of Norma Mary Harriman, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. McKAY DEE HOSPITAL CENTER, Intermountain Health Care, Inc., Utah corporations, Dr. Ivan D. Wright, Dr. Harold Vonk, and Dr. Ronald S. Rankin, individuals, and John Does 1-50, Defendants and Appellees.
    No. 20020204.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    Feb. 20, 2004.
    Rehearing Denied April 14, 2004.
    Thor B. Roundy, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
    JoAnn E. Carnahan, Paul D. Van Komen, Salt Lake City, for McKay Dee Hospital Center and Intermountain Health Care.
    Richard Campbell, David Ference, Ogden, for Dr. Vonk and Dr. Rankin.
    P. Keith Nelson, Robert G. Wright, Brandon B. Hobbs, Salt Lake City, for Dr. Wright.
   NEHRING, Justice:

¶ 1 Helen Labelle and her sisters, the daughters and heirs of Norma Mary Harri-man, sued McKay-Dee Hospital Center, In-termountain Health Care, Drs. Wright, Vonk, and Rankin, and other unnamed health care providers for medical malpractice. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the ease, because the Harriman heirs had failed to mail a copy of the request for prelitigation hearing to the defendants, as required by section 78-14-12(2)(b) of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act. Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-12(2)(b) (2002). The Harriman heirs appealed. We reverse.

¶ 2 On February 20, 1999, Mrs. Harriman went to the emergency room of McKay-Dee Hospital with an inflamed knee and a head injury. She was attended to by the emergency room staff and Drs. Wright and Rankin, who consulted by telephone with Dr. Vonk, Mrs. Harriman’s primary health care provider. The physicians examined Mrs. Harriman, drained fluid from her knee, and released her. Mrs. Harriman’s condition deteriorated, resulting in another emergency room visit on February 24, 1999. This time Mrs. Harriman was admitted to the hospital, where she was diagnosed with a severe staphylococcus infection. Mrs. Harriman remained as a patient at McKay-Dee Hospital until March 3,1999, when she died.

¶ 3 Believing that the negligence of the health care providers caused their mother’s death, the Harriman heirs sought legal relief under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-14-1 to -17 (2002). The Medical Malpractice Act imposes procedural requirements on claimants which, in their scope, set persons with medical malpractice claims apart from other tort claimants. These mandates, commonly known as “prelitigation procedures,” are a central feature of the Medical Malpractice Act, enacted to further the Act’s goal “to expedite early evaluation and settlement of claims.” Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-2.

¶ 4 Two of the prelitigation procedures created by the Medical Malpractice Act stand out because they have been expressly designated as preconditions to invoking the jurisdiction of the district court: the notice of intent to commence action, and the prelitigation hearing. Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-14-8, -12.

¶ 5 On February 14, 2001, the Harriman heirs complied with the first of these preconditions by sending a notice of intent to commence an action to the health care providers believed to have provided Mrs. Harriman with deficient care.

¶ 6 This appeal concerns the Medical Malpractice Act’s second procedure with jurisdictional implications, the prelitigation hearing. At issue is whether the Harriman heirs’ failure to mail a copy of the request for that hearing, as required by the Malpractice Act, divested the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to consider the lawsuit. The district court held that the requirement that notice be mailed to the health care providers was governed by section 78 — 14—12(l)(c) of the Malpractice Act, which states: “The proceedings are informal, nonbinding, and are not subject to Title 63, Chapter 46b, Administrative Procedures Act, but are compulsory as a condition precedent to commencing litigation.” The district court agreed with the health care providers that as a consequence of the Harriman heirs’ failure to mail the notice, the litigation had not commenced and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter. Because the mailing requirement is not part of the “proceedings” as that term is used in section 78 — 14—12(l)(c), we hold that failure to comply with it does not affect the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

¶ 7 This outcome reflects the integration of our jurisprudence relating to the dimensions of the subject matter jurisdiction of our district courts with our interpretation of the Medical Malpractice Act. Our examination of the Malpractice Act is guided by the plain language of its text read as a whole with a view toward harmonizing its provisions. See State v. Schofield, 2002 UT 132, ¶ 8, 63 P.3d 667. As this is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment and the issue turns on interpretation of law, we proceed with our analysis independent of the district court’s effort.

¶ 8 Article VIII, section 5 of the Utah Constitution vests in the district court “original jurisdiction in all matters except as limited by this constitution or by statute.” We presume that our district courts retain their grant of constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of a clearly expressed statutory intention to limit jurisdiction. As we have previously stated:

[T]o divest the official courts of jurisdiction ... precludes them from fulfilling their responsibility of remaining available to adjudicate all controversies for anyone seeking justice. The reticence with which [divestiture of jurisdiction] should be done is further emphasized by realizing that [divestiture] cuts into the procedural safeguards our law provides, including the right to have a trial by jury if one so desires, and the right of review on appeal.

Barnhart v. Civil Serv. Employees Ins. Co., 16 Utah 2d 223, 398 P.2d 873, 876 (1965). The language and structure of the Malpractice Act offer scant evidence of an intention to condition the exercise of the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction on compliance with the mailing requirement.

¶ 9 The district court agreed with the health care providers’ contention that the mailing requirement of section 78-14-12(2)(b) is a “proceeding” as that term is used in section 78-14-12(l)(c), and is, therefore, “compulsory as a condition precedent to commencing litigation.” The text of the Malpractice Act does not, however, support this conclusion. Throughout the text of the Medical Malpractice Act, the term “proceeding” refers exclusively to the prelitigation hearing itself, to the exclusion of the procedure for requesting prelitigation panel review. The plain language of the complete text of section 78-14-12(1) demonstrates this point:

(l)(a) The division shall provide a hearing panel in alleged medical liability cases against health care providers as defined in Section 78-14-3, except dentists.
(b)(i) The division shall establish procedures for prelitigation consideration of medical liability claims for damages arising out of the provision of or alleged failure to provide health care.
(ii) The division may establish rules necessary to administer the process and procedures related to prelitigation hearings and the conduct of prelitigation hearings in accordance with Sections 78-14-12 through 78-14-16.
(c) The proceedings are informal, nonbinding, and are not subject to Title 63, Chapter 46b, Administrative Procedures Act, but are compulsory as a condition precedent to commencing litigation.
(d) Proceedings conducted under authority of this section are confidential, privileged, and immune from civil process.

Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-12(1). The sole subject of this subpart is authority of the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing to promulgate procedures for preliti-

gation review of medical malpractice claims, including hearing procedures. The prelitigation review components, in particular the prelitigation hearing, are antecedents for “proceedings” in both subparts (c) and (d) of section 78-14-12(1). These subparts characterize the proceedings as “informal, nonbinding, and [ ] not subject to Title 63, Chapter 46b, Administrative Procedure Act,” and “confidential, privileged, and immune from civil process.” Id. None of these descriptive terms is relevant to the requirement that the request for prelitigation panel review be mailed to health care providers. In fact, the application of any of these descriptions of the proceedings to the mailing requirement is confusing and nonsensical.

¶ 10 The use of the term “proceeding” elsewhere in the Medical Malpractice Act reinforces the intention made evident in the language of section 78-14-12(1) to limit its scope to prelitigation hearings. For example, “proceeding” appears seven times in section 78-14-13 to refer to the prelitigation panel:

(1) No record of the proceedings is required and all evidence, documents, and exhibits are returned to the parties or witnesses who provided the evidence, documents, and exhibits at the end of the proceedings upon the request of the parties or witnesses who provided the evidence.
(4) The proceedings are informal and formal rules of evidence are not applicable. There is no discovery or perpetuation of testimony in the proceedings, except upon special order of the panel, and for good cause shown demonstrating extraordinary circumstances.
(5)(a) A party is entitled to attend, personally or with counsel, and participate in the proceedings, except upon special order of the panel and unanimous agreement of the parties. The proceedings are confidential and closed to the public.
(b) No party has a right to cross-examine, rebut, or demand that customary formalities of civil trials and court proceedings be followed. The panel may, however, request special or supplemental participation of some or all parties in particular respects....
(7) Parties may be represented by counsel in proceedings before a panel.

Utah Code Ann. § 78 — 14—1S(1)(4) to (5)(a), (b), (7) (emphasis added).

¶ 11 Section 78-14-14 contains one reference to proceedings, stating: “The panel shall render its opinion in writing no later than 30 days after the end of the proceedings." Utah Code Ann. § 78-11^14 (emphasis added).

¶ 12 Addressing the use of evidence considered by the prelitigation panel, section 78-14-15(1) provides:

(1) Evidence of the proceedings conducted by the medical review panel and its results, opinions, findings, and determinations are not admissible as evidence in an action subsequently brought by the claimant in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-15(1) (emphasis added).

¶ 13 And finally, section 78-14-16 completes the Malpractice Act’s use of the term proceeding with the following:

Upon written agreement of all parties, the proceeding may be considered a binding arbitration hearing and proceed under Title 78, Chapter 31a, except for the selection of the panel, which is done as set forth in Subsection 78-14-12(4). If the proceeding is considered an arbitration proceeding, the parties are equally responsible for compensation to the members of the panel for services rendered.

Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-16 (emphasis added). The plain meaning of “proceeding” in each of these sections of the Medical Malpractice Act is restricted to the prelitigation hearing and does not reach the mailing requirement.

¶ 14 To construe section 78-14-12(l)(c) in a manner to impose jurisdictional consequences on a claimant’s every procedural stumble is to misapprehend the Medical Malpractice Act’s selective application of preconditions to maintaining malpractice lawsuits.

¶ 15 In addition to making the “proceedings” a “condition precedent to commencing litigation” in section 78 — 14—12(l)(c), the Malpractice Act expressly conditions the initiation of a malpractice action on the filing of a notice to commence action. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-8. If the health care providers’ view that “proceedings” as used in section 78-14-12(l)(c) applies to prelitigation activities generally, the language of section 78-14-8 would be mere surplusage.

¶ 16 In explaining our approach to statutory interpretation, we stated:

Statutory enactments are to be construed as to render all parts thereof relevant and meaningful. Likewise, we are compelled to give the statutory language meaning and to assume that each term in the statute was used advisedly ... unless such a reading is unreasonably confused or inoperable. We will avoid an interpretation which renders portions of, or words in, a statute superfluous or inoperative.

Platts v. Parents Helping Parents, 947 P.2d 658, 662 (Utah 1997) (citing Jensen v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 679 P.2d 903, 906 (Utah 1984); Millett v. Clark Clinic Corp., 609 P.2d 934, 936 (Utah 1980); Savage Indus., Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 811 P.2d 664, 669 (Utah 1991); State v. Hunt, 906 P.2d 311, 312 (Utah 1995)). The application of these principles here underscores our conclusion that the request for prelitigation review mailing requirement is not a section 78-14-12(l)(c) proceeding.

¶ 17 We do not ignore the fact that the requirement that the request for prelitigation panel review be mailed to the health care providers is mandatory. A claimant’s failure to comply with this requirement may well warrant sanction by either the Division of Professional Licensing or the district court. The mailing l-equirement is, however, a minor component of the Malpractice Act’s preli-tigation scheme. It serves a wholly informational role, and it is difficult to envision how a health care provider could be prejudiced by being deprived of a copy of the claimant’s request for prelitigation panel review.

¶ 18 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 19 Chief Justice DURHAM, Associate Chief Justice DURRANT, Justice WILKINS, and Justice PARRISH concur in Justice NEHRING’S opinion.

      . The district court noted that it had received and considered matters outside the pleadings, and therefore treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment.

      . Other states have articulated a similar principle. See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 788 P.2d 1178, 1181 (1990) (stating that "a presumption exists in favor of [a district court's] retention of jurisdiction, and divestiture ... cannot be inferred but must be clearly and unambiguously found”); State v. Villados, 55 Haw. 394, 520 P.2d 427, 430 (1974) (holding that “the law in favor of [divestment of a court's jurisdiction] must be clear and unambiguous"); Paley v. Coca Cola Co., 389 Mich. 583, 209 N.W.2d 232, 236 (1973) (quoting 19th century Michigan State Supreme Court case that "the law in favor of [divesting a court of jurisdiction] must be clear and unambiguous ... and leave nothing for the play of doubt and uncertainty”).