In Rubalcava v. Gisseman, 14 Utah 2d 344, 384 P.2d 389 (Utah 1963) the Court held that a wife could not sue her husband for a negligent tort arising during their marriage. The Court acknowledged the continued relevance of the underlying rationales for interspousal immunity. The Court agreed with other courts "that it should be the purpose of the law to protect family solidarity." The Court also stated that "the temptation to collusion exists; and this is increased when the supposedly adverse parties are in the symbiotic relationship of husband and wife." Moreover, the Court stated that "to allow interspousal actions 'encourages raids on insurance companies through unmeritorious claims which never would be instituted where the husband did not carry liability insurance, thus possibly raising insurance rates on thousands of honest persons for the benefit of the fraudulent few.'" The Court also concluded that the Married Women's Act abolished interspousal immunity only in contract and property cases, stating that had the Legislature intended to abolish interspousal immunity in tort cases as well, it would have done so explicitly.