Subrogation

[S9905]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Va. I recently recieved a subrogation letter from a home insurance company. My question is..can they come after me for this money when the homeowner has already sued for the same money and lost?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Va. I recently recieved a subrogation letter from a home insurance company. My question is..can they come after me for this money when the homeowner has already sued for the same money and lost?

No, they should not be able to do that. However, they probably do not know that the homeowner already sued you and lost, so you should reply to them and give them a copy of the paperwork of the case that they lost.

 

[FlyingRon]

Define "lost."

In most cases, you are right. Follow Ldij's advice.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Va. I recently recieved a subrogation letter from a home insurance company. My question is..can they come after me for this money when the homeowner has already sued for the same money and lost?

It would be nice if a definitive answer were to fit here, but such an effort would require more information.

What I believe can safely be said is that if the insured had independently filed and prosecuted the lawsuit with full knowledge of his insurer (or in the exercise of reasonable effort the company would have been made aware and timely aware) then, if for no other reason, the insurer should be estopped or deemed to have waived its right of subrogation.

On the other hand if the lawsuit had been filed and prosecuted without the knowledge or consent of the insurer and the insurer was found innocent of knowledge of the claim having been filed AND IMPORTANTLY you could be charged with either actual or constructive notice that insurance had been paid then it is likely that the right of subrogation would be preserved.

Why do I say likely? Because of the balancing of contrasting equities and the common law concept of subrogation being:

"To place ultimate responsibility for the loss on the wrongdoer who in good conscious should pay, and to reimburse the innocent party who is compelled to pay".

All in my opinion, of course.

 

[latigo]

Define "lost."

In most cases, you are right. Follow Ldij's advice.

You continue to give credence to the thimble rigger LdiJ's guesswork and your picture is coming down.

 

[LdiJ]

It would be nice if a definitive answer were to fit here, but such an effort would require more information.

What I believe can safely be said is that if the insured had independently filed and prosecuted the lawsuit with full knowledge of his insurer (or in the exercise of reasonable effort the company would have been made aware and timely aware) then, if for no other reason, the insurer should be estopped or deemed to have waived its right of subrogation.

On the other hand if the lawsuit had been filed and prosecuted without the knowledge or consent of the insurer and the insurer was found innocent of knowledge of the claim having been filed AND IMPORTANTLY you could be charged with either actual or constructive notice that insurance had been paid then it is likely that the right of subrogation would be preserved.

Why do I say likely? Because of the balancing of contrasting equities and the common law concept of subrogation being:

[I] "To place ultimate responsibility for the loss on the wrongdoer who in good conscious should pay, and to reimburse the innocent party who is compelled to pay". [/I]

All in my opinion, of course.

Except that the court has already determined that the innocent party is the OP.

 

[FlyingRon]

You continue to give credence to the thimble rigger LdiJ's guesswork and your picture is coming down.

Eh, I don't know what the above ad hominem drivel is supposed to mean. The only part of Ldij's post that I agreed with was that he should notify the insurer of the disposition of the former lawsuit. Your advice would be useful if you skipped the insults and stuck to the issues.

My first question prevails. What did he mean by lost? What was the nature of the first suit and how was it actually disposed of?
It also matters much in Virginia what the claim being subrogated is for.

 

[latigo]

. . . . . Your advice would be useful if you skipped the insults (?) and stuck to the issues. . . . .

A tongue-in-cheek threat to take down your picture is seen as insulting?

What if I were to leave it up, but "stuck" it facing the wall? Sans humour! A pox upon me, Monsieur aviateur.