Can Rule 30.1.01 of the implied undertaking rule apply to an accident benefits insurer?

Tanner v. Clark is easily distinguishable from the case at bar. It dealt with a situation where an administrative proceeding was followed by an action, so that Rule 30.1.01 did not apply. As such, it interpreted and applied the common law implied undertaking rule to the facts before it. The case before this court, however, involves one action in tort being followed by another action against the accident benefits insurer. Both are “proceedings” within the meaning of the rule. Furthermore, the evidence was obtained under Rule 33 (medical examination), which is one of the enumerated procedures to which the rule applies.