Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Case Briefs

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
October 06, 2005

Carrier Subrogation Claim Not Barred Against Individual Insured When Individual Not Insured Under Coverage for Which Subrogation Is Sought

In McKinley v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1299 (Cal. App. July 21, 2005), an insurance carrier brought a subrogation action against a student pilot for damage suffered to a plane during a landing. The carrier insured the owner of the plane, providing physical damage coverage for the plane itself, as well as liability coverage for claims brought by third parties. The carrier also covered student pilots with respect to claims asserted against them by third parties. After paying the owner of the plane for the damage to the plane, the carrier filed an action in the owner's name against the student pilot. The student pilot ultimately was found not liable for damage to the plane. She then filed a bad faith action against the carrier, contending that it should have defended and indemnified her regarding the claim for damage to the plane, rather than sued her in subrogation for that damage. The court reaffirmed the general principle that a carrier may not pursue subrogation against its insured, stating:

An insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured with respect to a loss or liability for which the insured is covered under the policy. Thus, it follows that “[i]f the policy does not cover the insured for a particular loss or liability … it would neither undermine the insured's coverage nor be inequitable to impose the loss or liability on the insured if the insured caused or was otherwise responsible for the loss or liability.

The court noted that the student pilot was not insured under the policy for damage to the plane itself. Therefore, the court concluded that the carrier was not barred from pursuing its subrogation claim against the student pilot. It stated that, “In the end, an insurer who has paid a claim for damage to rented equipment cannot be said to have acted in bad faith in seeking subrogation from a renter reasonably believed to have caused that damage.”

California High Court Expands Insurers' Right to Recover Defense Costs Advanced for a Policyholder

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

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.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?