10 Because the statute mandates binding arbitration of como decorar un regalo con papel seda the issue of liability for reimbursement, Utah Code Ann.
At 12.
We hold that.Ostler, 2001 UT 68, 5,.3d 528. Rather, the mandatory arbitration requirement is triggered as soon as any insurer, other than the tortfeasor's insurer, pays a PIP claim. 12 Our interpretation of the statute is also supported by considerations of economy, which are a primary reason for employing an arbitration system to resolve disputes between insurers. Accordingly, we affirm the opinion of the court of appeals. 31A-22-309(5) (1999). At that point, the law requires the tortfeasor's PIP insurer to reimburse any other insurer that has paid PIP benefits to the accident victim and provides that binding arbitration is the exclusive vehicle bebederos para ganado uruguay for enforcing that reimbursement obligation. 606.2d 1197, 1202 (Utah 1980). Under subsection 309(6 regalos gratis bebé b mandatory arbitration is not limited to the narrower question of liability for an injury. We review the court of appeals' interpretation of the relevant statute for correctness, according no deference to its conclusions.Co., 2002 UT App 27,. We agree and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.



Wall, 1999 UT 33, .
  Accordingly, the court of appeals held that binding arbitration was the exclusive avenue through which Regal could seek reimbursement of its PIP payments from Canal.

[L_RANDNUM-10-999]