Expenses incurred in exercising the rights of subrogation under this Code section shall be at the sole expense of the insurers and self-insurers involved. If the responsible tort-feasor is uninsured or is not a self-insurer, the insurer or self-insurer providing benefits shall have a right of action to the extent of benefits provided against such tort-feasor only in the event that the person for whom benefits are provided has been completely compensated for all economic and non-economic losses incurred as a result of the motor vehicle accident." Implicit in the foregoing is the proposition that in those accidents involving two or more vehicles one of which weighs more than 6500 pounds unloaded, insurers and self-insurers providing no-fault benefits shall be subrogated to the rights of the person for whom such benefits are provided, and it has been so interpreted. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 163 Ga. App. 20 ( 293 S.E.2d 509) (1982); see also Carter v. Banks, 254 Ga. 550 (3) ( 330 S.E.2d 866) (1985). The 1984 amendment, Ga. L. 1984, p. 516, supra, made no change applicable here.
We disagree. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 163 Ga. App. 20 ( 293 S.E.2d 509) (1982); United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Ryder Truck Lines, 160 Ga. App. 650 ( 288 S.E.2d 1) (1981). Georgia's no-fault insurance law was enacted in 1974, 11 years after the legislature enacted the uninsured motorist statute.
Inasmuch as The Travelers stands in the shoes of its insured-subrogor, The Travelers can have no greater right of recovery than Mrs. Neal. Thus within the meaning of the applicable statute ( § 33-34-3 (d) (1)), there was no "responsible tort-feasor" against and because of whom damages were due to Mrs. Neal. The statute involved mandates that the right of recovery on a subrogation claim is to be determined on the basis of tort law between the insurers involved. See Hanover Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 163 Ga. App. 20, 21 ( 293 S.E.2d 509). When the Neals filed their suit against Mid-South and Gibbs as the asserted tort-feasors, The Travelers had the right to seek intervention so as to protect their rights and interest in the no-fault payments already made to Mrs. Neal. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Five Transp. Co., 246 Ga. 447, 454 (3) ( 271 S.E.2d 844).
Appellee cites United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 160 Ga. App. 650 ( 288 S.E.2d 1) (1981), for the proposition that claims brought under Georgia's no-fault insurance law are subject to the 20-year limitation of OCGA § 9-3-22. However, as noted in Hanover Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 163 Ga. App. 20, 21 ( 293 S.E.2d 509) (1982), Ryder involved a claim for subrogation which was found to be "a purely statutory right as compared to a conventional or equitable subrogation claim. . . ." Similarly, Perry Co. v. Knight Ins. Underwriters, 149 Ga. App. 128, 129-130 (2) ( 253 S.E.2d 808) (1979) concerned a "claim for relief [which] was predicated on [a] statutory obligation.