dissenting:
11 22 I respectfully dissent. I believe that the legislature imposed an obligation on insurers to provide minimum mandatory coverage for a spouse's separate loss of consortium claim. Thus, I disagree with the majority's holding that the single person mandatory limit of $25,000 is all the coverage that is required for both Mr. Ewart's claims and Mrs. Ewart's separate loss of consortium claim.
[ 23 The legislature has specifically provided for a separate loss of consortium claim by the spouse of a person suffering a "significant permanent injury." Utah Code Ann. § 80-2-11(1)(a) (Supp.2006). In statutorily creating a cause of action for loss of consortium, the legislature recognized that when a person suffers a significant permanent injury, the spouse of that injured person has a separate and distinct injury due to the loss of marital benefits. See Hackford v. Utah Power & Light Co., 740 P.2d 1281, 1290, 1292 (Utah 1987) (Durham, J., dissenting).
124 The legislature has mandated motor vehicle insurance coverage "against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ... use of ... motor vehicles." Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-803(1)(a)(i)(A) (2005). It is uncontested that loss of consortium is a "liability imposed by law." Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Versaw, 2004 UT 73, ¶ 19, 99 P.3d 796. Thus, I conclude that by providing for the loss of consortium cause of action and by mandating insurance coverage for Habilitics imposed by law, the legislature intended separate coverage by insurers for loss of consortium claims. I do not believe the legislature intended to require a person with significant permanent injury to share a single person policy limit with his or her spouse suffering loss of consortium.
[ 25 The legislature, in enacting the loss of consortium statute, evidenced its ability to limit the available recovery as the majority does today. However, the legislature did not limit loss of consortium claims to a single person policy limit in the motor vehicle insurance arena as it did in other fields. First, the legislature explicitly provided for single person coverage limits to apply against governmental entities. Utah Code Ann. § 30-2-11(8) (Supp.2006) (limiting damage awards against "governmental entit[ies]" to "not exceed the liability limit for one person in any one occurrence"). Second, the legislature clearly limited coverage for loss of consor*1016tium claims to that coverage available to the injured spouse for general damages. The legislature required that the separate claims of the injured party for general damages and the spouse's loss of consortium claim be combined in order to "not exceed any applicable statutory limit on noneconomic damages, including [noneconomic damages in malpractice actions]." Id. § 30-2-11(7). Thus, the legislature has limited coverage of a loss of consortium claim to the minimum mandatory coverage available to the injured spouse when it sees fit. It has not done so in the motor vehicle insurance arena.
126 Further, Utah Code section 81A-22-304(1)(a) requires minimum mandatory coverage of "$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." When there is "bodily injury to ... two or more persons," minimum mandatory coverage of $50,000 is required. Id. § 31A-22-804(1)(b) (2005). In my opinion, the plain language of these provisions requires separate coverage for the spouse's loss of consortium claim. "Bodily injury" should be construed broadly in the overall statutory scheme and relates to causes of action for injuries arising from the accident; it was not, in my view, intended to limit coverage to only physical injuries, as opposed to "liabilitlies] imposed by law." Mrs. Ewart's loss of consortium claim is a separate and distinct injury. As noted previously, the legislature has not attempted to limit coverage for loss of consortium claims in this field. Progressive itself acknowledged in oral argument that it routinely provides separate coverage under the "bodily injury" provisions for claims for infliction of emotional distress, which may not result in physical injury to the claimant. I believe that the legislature did not intend to disregard injuries that are liabilities imposed by law that may not result in actual physical injury. The specific term "bodily injury," in my view, encompasses claims for loss of consortium, just as it would include infliction of emotional distress. Minimum mandatory coverage of $50,000 is required because of the distinct injuries to two persons-Mr. Ewart and Mrs. Ewart. Mrs. Ewart has suffered her own distinct injury, and I believe that the structure of the statute is intended to cover all claims arising out of the accident, including pain and suffering, infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and other nonphysical injuries.
27 In creating a separate cause of action for loss of consortium and requiring insurance coverage for liabilities imposed by law, I believe the legislature intended the minimum mandatory coverage amounts to encompass nonphysical injuries We have recognized that the public policy reflected in the legislature's enactment of minimum mandatory coverage is " 'to protect innocent victims of automobile accidents. " Li v. Enter. Rent-A-Car Co., 2006 UT 80, ¶ 13, 150 P.3d 471 (quoting Speros v. Fricke, 2004 UT 69, ¶ 42, 98 P.3d 28). Mrs. Ewart, whose spouse was significantly injured in this case, is one such innocent victim of the accident, and the legislature intended to protect her with minimum mandatory coverage. In sum, I believe the legislature has imposed an obligation on insurers to provide separate minimum mandatory coverage for the loss of consortium claim of the spouse of an injured person.
1 28 Justice PARRISH concurs in Chief Justice DURHAM'S dissenting opinion.