“fraught with possibilities” and noted that many early writers “objected to ... assignability because they felt that unscrupulous people would purchase causes of action and thereby traffic in law suits for pain and suffering.” Harleysville, 2 Ariz. App. at 541-42, 410 P.2d at 498-99. ¶ 11 This Court subsequently endorsed Harleysville and expressly relied on public policy considerations in reaffirming the rule against assignment of personal injury claims. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Knapp, 107 Ariz. 184, 185, 484 P.2d 180, 181 (1971). Both Harleysville and Knapp, however, noted that the legislature could specify whether certain claims are assignable. Id.; Harleysville, 2 Ariz.App. at 542, 410 P.2d at 499; see also K.W. Dart Truck Co. v. Noble, 116 Ariz. 9, 11, 567 P.2d 325, 327 (1977) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 12 Public policy considerations have also
holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act holding that an insured could not assign its unliquidated tort claim holding that workers compensation insurer was required to intervene in injured employees tort action to protect and enforce its subrogation lien and could not file a separate action holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured holding that the legislature could statutorily assign an injured workers claim to his employers insurer in certain circumstances