Utah Code

Utah Code § 31A-22-309 (2026)

Limitations, exclusions, and conditions to personal injury protection

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person who has or is required to have direct benefit coverage under a policy that includes personal injury protection may not maintain a cause of action for general damages arising out of personal injuries alleged to have been caused by an automobile accident, except where the person sustains one or more of the following:

death;

dismemberment;

permanent disability or permanent impairment based upon objective findings;

permanent disfigurement;

a bone fracture; or

medical expenses to a person in excess of $3,000.

Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a person making an uninsured motorist claim.

An insurer issuing personal injury protection coverage under this part may only exclude from this coverage benefits:

for an injury the insured sustains while occupying another motor vehicle owned by or furnished for the regular use of the insured or a resident family member of the insured and not insured under the policy;

for an injury a person sustains while operating the insured motor vehicle without the express or implied consent of the insured or while not in lawful possession of the insured motor vehicle;

to an injured person, if the person's conduct contributed to the person's injury:

by intentionally causing injury to the person; or

while committing a felony;

for an injury a person sustains arising out of the use of a motor vehicle while located for use as a residence or premises;

for an injury due to war, whether declared, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, or revolution, or to an act or a condition incident to a war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, or revolution; or

for an injury resulting from the radioactive, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of nuclear materials.

This Subsection (2) does not limit the exclusions that may be contained in other types of coverage.

The benefits payable to an injured person under Section 31A-22-307 are reduced by:

any benefits that the injured person receives or is entitled to receive as a result of an accident covered in this code under any workers' compensation or similar statutory plan; and

any amounts that the injured person receives or is entitled to receive from the United States or any of the United States' agencies because that person is on active duty in the military service.

When 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.

Payment of the benefits provided for in Section 31A-22-307 shall be made on a monthly basis as expenses are incurred.

Benefits for any period are overdue if the insurer does not pay the benefits within 30 days after the day on which the insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and amount of expenses incurred during the period.

If reasonable proof is not supplied as to the entire claim, the amount supported by reasonable proof is overdue if not paid within 30 days after the insurer receives that proof.

Any part or all of the remainder of the claim that is later supported by reasonable proof is also overdue if not paid within 30 days after the day on which the insurer receives the proof.

If the insurer fails to pay the expenses when due, these expenses shall bear interest at the rate of 1-1/2% per month after the due date.

The person entitled to the benefits may bring an action in contract to recover the expenses plus the applicable interest.

If the insurer is required by the action to pay any overdue benefits and interest, the insurer is also required to pay a reasonable attorney's fee to the claimant.

Except as provided in Subsection (6)(b), a policy that provides personal injury protection coverage is subject to the following:

that where the insured under the policy is or would be held legally liable for the personal injuries sustained by any person to whom benefits required under personal injury protection have been paid by another insurer, the insurer of the person who would be held legally liable shall reimburse the other insurer for the payment, but not in excess of the amount of damages recoverable; and

that the issue of liability for that reimbursement and the reimbursement's amount shall be decided by mandatory, binding arbitration between the insurers.

There shall be no right of reimbursement between insurers under Subsection (6)(a) if the insurer of the person who would be held legally liable for the personal injuries sustained has tendered the insurer's policy limit.

If the insurer of the person who would be held legally liable for the personal injuries sustained reimburses a no-fault insurer before settling a third party liability claim with an injured person and subsequently determines that some or all of the reimbursed amount is needed to settle a third party claim, the insurer of the person who would be held legally liable for the personal injuries sustained shall provide written notice to the no-fault insurer that some or all of the reimbursed amount is needed to settle a third party liability claim.

The written notice described under Subsection (6)(c)(i) shall:

identify the amount of the reimbursement that is needed to settle a third party liability claim;

provide notice to the no-fault insurer that the no-fault insurer has 15 days to return the amount described in Subsection (6)(c)(ii)(A); and

identify the third party liability insurer that the returned amount shall be paid to.

A no-fault insurer that receives a notice under this Subsection (6)(c) shall return the portion of the reimbursement identified under Subsection (6)(c)(ii) to the third party liability insurer identified under Subsection (6)(c)(ii)(C) within 15 business days after the day on which the no-fault insurer receives a notice under this Subsection (6)(c).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 36 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Pinney v. Carrera, 2019 UT App 12 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pinney v. Carrera, 2019 UT App 12 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 58× “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (LexisNexis 2017), with id.”

C.T. Ex Rel. Taylor v. Johnson, 1999 UT 35 (Utah 1999). · cites it 36× “did not meet the threshold no-fault insurance requirements of Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(1); and (2) the punitive damage award was barred by Utah Code Ann.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mastbaum, 748 P.2d 1042 (Utah 1987). · cites it 32× “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (1985 Insurance Code Recodification pamphlet edition) (emphasis added).”

Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68 (Utah 2002). · cites it 14× “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(1)(a) (2001).”

Pinney v. Carrera, 2020 UT 43 (Utah 2020). · cites it 15× “CARRERA Opinion of the Court because she failed to satisfy the requirements set out in Utah Code section 31A-22-309, a prerequisite to receiving general damages in most automobile accident cases.”

Heslop v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 UT 5 (Utah 2017). · cites it 4× “It argued that both Utah Code section 31A-22-309 and the terms of the insurance policy barred the Heslops’ claim.”

Sheppard v. Geneva Rock, 2021 UT 31 (Utah 2021). · cites it 7× “The court reasoned that Sheppard failed to produce evidence sufficient to meet the requirements that Utah Code section 31A-22-309 puts in place for plaintiffs seeking general damages in certain cases.”

McNair v. Farris, 944 P.2d 392 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 18× “At oral argument, McNair’s appellate counsel suggested that McNair's trial counsel, relying on an earlier version of Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (1994), mistakenly assumed that a broken bone satisfied the statutory threshold requirement.”

Warren v. Melville, 937 P.2d 556 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 18× “See Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (1994). Like the Masich court, we determine that Utah’s no-fault statute “should not be discarded because some members of the class have rights, which may be adversely affected.”

Neel v. State, 889 P.2d 922 (Utah 1995). · cites it 13× “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(3) The most troubling aspect of IML Freight is its cursory treatment of the statute that directly confronts this issue.”

Neel v. State, 854 P.2d 581 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 14× “Finally, section 31A-22-309(5) provides that a claimant entitled to PIP benefits may sue the insurer of a vehicle if the insurer fails to pay the PIP benefits within thirty days.”

Jepson v. State, Dep't of Corr., 846 P.2d 485 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 14× “Specifically, Jepson argues that his claim against the State did not arise until he satisfied one of the threshold requirements of Utah’s no-fault statute, Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (1991), which states: (1) No person who has direct benefit coverage under a policy which…”

Show all 36 citing cases →

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(1) — 5 cases

C.T. Ex Rel. Taylor v. Johnson, 1999 UT 35 (Utah 1999). “did not meet the threshold no-fault insurance requirements of Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(1); and (2) the punitive damage award was barred by Utah Code Ann.”

Pinney v. Carrera, 2019 UT App 12 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (LexisNexis 2017), with id.”

Bear River Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 1999 UT 33 (Utah 1999).

McNair v. Farris, 944 P.2d 392 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). “At oral argument, McNair’s appellate counsel suggested that McNair's trial counsel, relying on an earlier version of Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (1994), mistakenly assumed that a broken bone satisfied the statutory threshold requirement.”

Warren v. Melville, 937 P.2d 556 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). “See Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (1994). Like the Masich court, we determine that Utah’s no-fault statute “should not be discarded because some members of the class have rights, which may be adversely affected.”

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(1)(a) — 6 cases

Pinney v. Carrera, 2019 UT App 12 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (LexisNexis 2017), with id.”

Pinney v. Carrera, 2020 UT 43 (Utah 2020). “CARRERA Opinion of the Court because she failed to satisfy the requirements set out in Utah Code section 31A-22-309, a prerequisite to receiving general damages in most automobile accident cases.”

Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68 (Utah 2002). “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(1)(a) (2001).”

State v. Miller, 2007 UT App 332 (Utah Ct. App. 2007).

Sheppard v. Geneva Rock, 2021 UT 31 (Utah 2021). “The court reasoned that Sheppard failed to produce evidence sufficient to meet the requirements that Utah Code section 31A-22-309 puts in place for plaintiffs seeking general damages in certain cases.”

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(1)(a)(ii) — 1 case

Rodriguez v. Crosby, 2024 UT App 7 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(1)(a)(iii) — 3 cases

Pinney v. Carrera, 2019 UT App 12 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (LexisNexis 2017), with id.”

Rodriguez v. Crosby, 2024 UT App 7 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(1)(a)(v) — 1 case

Kubiak v. Pinson, 2020 UT App 40 (Utah Ct. App. 2020).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(1)(a)(vi) — 1 case

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(2)(a) — 1 case

McCaffery v. Grow, 787 P.2d 901 (Utah Ct. App. 1990).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(2)(a)(iii) — 2 cases

Heslop v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 UT 5 (Utah 2017). “It argued that both Utah Code section 31A-22-309 and the terms of the insurance policy barred the Heslops’ claim.”

Heslop v. Bear River, 2017 UT 5 (Utah 2017).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(2)(b) — 1 case

Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Moore Ex Rel. Moore, 882 P.2d 1168 (Utah Ct. App. 1994).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(3) — 1 case

Neel v. State, 889 P.2d 922 (Utah 1995). “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(3) The most troubling aspect of IML Freight is its cursory treatment of the statute that directly confronts this issue.”

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(3)(a) — 2 cases

Neel v. State, 889 P.2d 922 (Utah 1995). “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(3) The most troubling aspect of IML Freight is its cursory treatment of the statute that directly confronts this issue.”

Bevans v. Indus. Comm'n of Utah, 790 P.2d 573 (Utah Ct. App. 1990).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(4) — 4 cases

Goetz v. Am. Reliable Ins. Co., 844 P.2d 366 (Utah Ct. App. 1992).

Li v. Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. of Utah, 2006 UT 80 (Utah 2006).

Chambers v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc., 878 P.2d 1164 (Utah Ct. App. 1994).

Regal Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 2004 UT 19 (Utah 2004).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(5) — 5 cases

Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68 (Utah 2002). “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(1)(a) (2001).”

Neel v. State, 854 P.2d 581 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). “Finally, section 31A-22-309(5) provides that a claimant entitled to PIP benefits may sue the insurer of a vehicle if the insurer fails to pay the PIP benefits within thirty days.”

Versluis v. Guar. Nat'l Companies, 842 P.2d 865 (Utah 1992).

Regal Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 2004 UT 19 (Utah 2004).

Regal Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 2002 UT App 27 (Utah Ct. App. 2002).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(5)(B) — 1 case

Holiday v. Progressive Ins. (D. Utah 2022).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(5)(b) — 2 cases

Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68 (Utah 2002). “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(1)(a) (2001).”

Holiday v. Progressive Ins. (D. Utah 2022).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(5)(d) — 2 cases

Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68 (Utah 2002). “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(1)(a) (2001).”

Regal Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 2002 UT App 27 (Utah Ct. App. 2002).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(6) — 7 cases

Regal Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 2004 UT 19 (Utah 2004).

United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. United States, 728 F. Supp. 651 (D. Utah 1989).

Bear River Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 1999 UT 33 (Utah 1999).

Bear River Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 937 P.2d 1282 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).

Regal Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 2002 UT App 27 (Utah Ct. App. 2002).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(6)(a) — 1 case

State v. Miller, 2007 UT App 332 (Utah Ct. App. 2007).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(6)(a)(i) — 2 cases

Powell v. Sys. Transp. Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (D. Or. 2015).

Rodriguez v. Diede, 2025 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(6)(a)(ii) — 1 case

Kubiak v. Pinson, 2020 UT App 40 (Utah Ct. App. 2020).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(6)(b) — 2 cases

Bear River Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 1999 UT 33 (Utah 1999).

Regal Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 2004 UT 19 (Utah 2004).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(b)(c) — 1 case

Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68 (Utah 2002). “Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309(1)(a) (2001).”

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(l) — 5 cases

United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. United States, 728 F. Supp. 651 (D. Utah 1989).

Bear River Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 937 P.2d 1282 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(l)(a) — 1 case

Pinney v. Carrera, 2019 UT App 12 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (LexisNexis 2017), with id.”

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(l)(c) — 1 case

— Utah Code § 31A-22-309(l)(e) — 2 cases

Jepson v. State, Dep't of Corr., 846 P.2d 485 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). “Specifically, Jepson argues that his claim against the State did not arise until he satisfied one of the threshold requirements of Utah’s no-fault statute, Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-309 (1991), which states: (1) No person who has direct benefit coverage under a policy which…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.