Tag Archives: Subrogation

Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors


This entry was posted by on .

In Lithko Contr., LLC v. XL Ins. Am. Inc., No. 31, Sept. Term, 2023, 2024 Md. LEXIS 256, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether a tenant who contracted for the construction of a large warehouse facility waived its insurer’s rights to subrogation against subcontractors when it agreed to waive subrogation against the general contractor. The court ultimately decided that the unambiguous language of the subrogation waiver in the development agreement between the parties did not extend to subcontractors. The court also held that the tenant’s requirement that subcontracts include a subrogation waiver did not, in this case, impose a project-wide waiver on all parties. The court, however, found that the requirement that the subcontracts include a similar, but not identical, waiver provision rendered the subcontract’s waiver clauses ambiguous and remanded the case to the lower court to determine if the parties to the development agreement – i.e., Duke Baltimore LLC (“Duke”) and Amazon.com.dedc, LLC (“Amazon”) – intended that the waiver clause in the subcontracts covered claims against subcontractors.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, Contracts, Maryland, Subrogation, Waiver of Subrogation and tagged , , , , , .

Insured Made Whole Doctrine: Texas and Washington


This entry was posted by on .

This episode of Subro Sessions, hosted by associates Zachariah Sigda and Katherine Dempsey, entitled, “Insured Made Whole Doctrine: Texas and Washington State,” dives into the topic of the made whole doctrine. Zachariah and Katherine define the made whole doctrine and explain how the doctrine applies in both Texas and Washington state courts, using those states to show how the doctrine can vary state-to-state. Thus, it is important for subrogation professionals to consider the made whole doctrine before pursuing recovery.

Listen to all of our episodes here.

You can also listen to Subro Sessions on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This entry was posted in Podcast, Subrogation and tagged , , , .

Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit


This entry was posted by on .

In Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only.

In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.”

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Illinois, Implied-Co-Insured, Landlord-Tenant, Subrogation, Sutton Doctrine and tagged , , , .

Water Losses 101: A Discussion of Common Causes of Water Losses and How to Investigate them – Part 2


This entry was posted by on .

The newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast, is hosted by Gus Sara, Partner, and Michael DeBona, Counsel, who are joined by guest J. Pablo Ross, PE, of Ross Engineering. The episode, entitled “Water Losses 101: A Discussion of Common Causes of Water Losses and How to Investigate Them – Part 2,” gives insight into the role of the attorney in a joint-evidence investigation, steps that subrogation professionals and experts take to complete the analysis, make appropriate recommendations to the client and the process of evidence lab examinations.

Listen to all of our episodes here.

You can also listen to Subro Sessions on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This entry was posted in Podcast, Subrogation, Water Loss and tagged , , .
Gavel

Oh, THAT Contract: Ohio Court Bars Plaintiff’s Negligence Claim Based on Subrogation Waiver and Accelerated Limitations Period in Contract


This entry was posted by on .

In Ohio Sec. Ins. Co v. Brakefire, Inc., CA. No. 5:24-cv-267, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97606 (Brakefire), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio considered whether a subrogating plaintiff’s negligence claim against a fire sprinkler maintenance company was barred by the maintenance contract between the parties. The court held that even though the plaintiff only asserted a negligence claim, the action was essentially rooted in the contract and, thus, the subrogation waiver and accelerated one-year limitations period in the contract barred the plaintiff’s action entirely. In addition, the court held that because the claim was based on the obligations set forth in the contract, the plaintiff could not proceed in tort.

In Brakefire, the plaintiff’s insured, Skyways Petroleum, LLC owned and operated a Comfort Inn & Suites Hotel (Comfort) in Kent, Ohio. Prior to February 2022, Comfort contracted with defendant Brakefire, Inc. (Brakefire) for maintenance of the fire suppression sprinkler system.  The contract contained a limitation of liability provision which stated that no action shall be brought against the service provider “more than one (1) year after the accrual of the cause of action.” The provision also stated that the parties “agree that their respective insurance companies shall have no right of subrogation against the other on account thereof.” In February 2022, the hotel experienced a severe water loss caused by a sprinkler pipe freezing and bursting. As the hotel’s property insurance carrier, the plaintiff paid over $3.5 million to repair the damages.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Contracts, Independent Duty, Limitation of Liability, Negligence, Ohio, Statute of Limitations - Contractual, Subrogation, Waiver of Subrogation and tagged , , , , , , , .

Water Losses 101: A Discussion of Common Causes of Water Losses and How to Investigate Them – Part 1


This entry was posted by on .

The newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast, is hosted by Gus Sara, Partner, and Michael DeBona, Counsel, who are joined by guest J. Pablo Ross, PE, of Ross Engineering. The episode, entitled “Water Losses 101: A Discussion of Common Causes of Water Losses and How to Investigate Them – Part 1,” explores the most common property damage claim our subrogation team encounters. Gus, Michael and Pablo define the causes, types of losses including product failures, HVAC failures, pipe freezes, overflows and give an overview of what a typical investigation looks like when developing a subrogation claim.

Be sure to mark your calendar for Part 2, being released on July 16.

Listen to all of our episodes here.

You can also listen to Subro Sessions on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This entry was posted in Podcast, Subrogation and tagged , , , .

Getting Control of an Accident Scene and Ensuring Evidence is Preserved


This entry was posted by on .

The newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast, hosted by associates, Ryan Bennett and Melissa Kenney, is entitled “Getting Control of an Accident Scene and Ensuring Evidence is Preserved.” Ryan and Melissa discuss fire scene preservation and safeguarding evidence on water damage claims and in fire loss cases. They share three examples of scenarios in which acting fast, retaining proper investigators and evidence technicians can ensure that the client is in the best position to evaluate subrogation potential.

Listen to all of our episodes on Libsyn. 

You can also listen to Subro Sessions on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , .
Gavel

Subrogation Waiver Unconscionable in Residential Fuel Delivery Contract


This entry was posted by on .

In a matter of first impression, the Superior Court of Connecticut (Superior Court), in American Commerce Ins., Co. v. Eastern Fuel Corp., No. CV-206109168-S, 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 380, held that a waiver of subrogation provision in a consumer fuel service/delivery contract violated public policy. The Superior Court overruled the motion for summary judgment filed by Eastern Fuel Corporation (Eastern) and determined that the clause was impermissible as the contract was entered into by two parties with unequal bargaining power.

American Commerce Insurance Company (American) provided property insurance to Arlene and James Hillas (the Insureds) for their home in Woodbridge, Connecticut. The Insureds hired Eastern to service their heating system on or around October 25, 2018. The service work at the property included inspecting the oil filters and flushing the fuel lines. On November 1, 2018, when the Insureds turned the heating system on for the first time that season, the two oil tanks on the property were allegedly full. After a series of deliveries, claims that the oil levels were lower than expected, discovering oil staining on the floor and Eastern’s replacement of the oil lines, Eastern delivered another 429 gallons. However, after the delivery, additional leaks were discovered relating to the oil line replacements. Ultimately, the Insureds submitted a claim to American and American paid in excess of $59,000 for the damage incurred.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Connecticut, Contracts, Public Policy, Subrogation, Uncategorized, Waiver of Subrogation and tagged , , , , , .
Signing Agreement

Missouri Protects Subrogation Rights


This entry was posted by on .

The point at which an insurance carrier possesses the equitable right of subrogation is an issue on which the states have differed. Some allow carriers to pursue rights of subrogation immediately upon payment and some have taken stricter approaches. Missouri falls into the latter group. By not allowing the carrier the right to file suit against third-party tortfeasors until the insured provides its carrier with an assignment of all its rights, Missouri’s approach has opened the door for challenges to subrogation rights.

In Megown v. Auto Club Fam. Ins. Co., 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 82, the plaintiff-insureds Michael and Jane Megown (the Megowns) suffered a house fire on February 8, 2016. Their insurance carrier, Auto Club Family Insurance Company (Auto Club) reimbursed the Megowns for their property damage in the amount of $722,433.56. Subsequently, the Megowns sued Auto Club for breach of contract and later amended their complaint to add claims against Tyberius Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Crag Electric (Craig Electric), the third-party tortfeasor, for direct negligence, alleging both property damage and personal injuries. Auto Club intervened in the Megowns’ claim against Craig Electric to protect its interest as subrogee for its property damage payment to the Megowns. Craig Electric settled prior to trial, paying $1,000,000.00 to both the Megowns and Auto Club, to be allocated at a later date. After a bench trial that apportioned the settlement with $722,433.56 paid to Auto Club and $277,566.44 paid to Megowns – and a jury trial awarding no further damages – the Megowns appealed.

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Assignment, Missouri, Parties, Public Policy, Subrogation and tagged , , .

Pursuing Claims Against Minors and Their Parents


This entry was posted by on .

Chris Konzelmann, Partner, hosts the newest episode of the Subro Sessions podcast entitled: “Pursuing Claims Against Minors and Their Parents.” In this episode, Chris revisits a case and discusses the problems that may arise when subrogation efforts are targeted towards children and their parents and whether either can be held responsible for tort claims.

Listen to all of our episodes here. 

This entry was posted in Subrogation and tagged , , .