Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
No Double Recovery in Subrogation
An insurance company is not entitled to sue a manufacturer for subrogation after the insured has already been compensated for the same claim by another manufacturer. 004. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company v. General Electric Company, No. 01-02-00895-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, July 1, 2004.
Clifton Hall, a minor, was injured while visiting his grandparents, Charles and Sherry Horn, when their house caught on fire. He was severely and permanently injured in the fire. The Horns sued several extension cord manufacturers and Wal-Mart, alleging that the fire was caused by defects in an extension cord they purchased from Wal-Mart. The Horns settled, and the insurer, Wausau, paid $15 million in settlement; $10 million was paid on behalf of one manufacturer (Woods) and $5 million was paid on behalf of Wal-Mart. After the settlement, Hall reached majority and commenced an action against General Electric (GE), alleging that GE ' and not Woods ' was the manufacturer of the defective extension cord. Hall and Wausau entered into an agreement whereby Wausau would pay Hall's legal expenses and Hall would agree to share any part of a recovery from GE with Wausau. Wausau brought a subrogation action against GE, “as real party in interest for Wal-Mart,” alleging that GE ' not Woods ' manufactured the defective extension cord. GE argued that even if Wausau was entitled to bring a subrogation claim, that claim must fail because Wal-Mart could not recover the full amount of its damages from two different manufacturers.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.