On Subrogation

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on the Anti-Subrogation Rule for a refresher! Original Air Date: June 11, 2021. The idea that an insurance company cannot subrogate against its own insureds seems like common sense, but is this a hard-and-fast rule?  What happens when an insurance company tries to seek reimbursement for medical expenses paid to their insured when they also insure the tortfeasor who caused those injuries? What if that insured seeks her own recovery against the tortfeasor for the same medical expenses? What if an insured’s intentional act was the cause of serious injuries or death? Does their insurance company have a right to subrogate to recover those amounts from their insured? In this installment in our series, follow Rebecca  [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/rebecca-w-wright/]and Steve [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/steven-alsip/] as they navigate the anti-subrogation rule and explain why insurance carriers cannot typically subrogate against their own insureds, and when such actions may be permitted.

Sometimes, the best evidence to support your subrogation case are records that were created by another company.  Will a court permit these records to be introduced, or are they destined to be barred by the hearsay rule?  Thankfully, the Business Records Doctrine allows a company to enter records previously created by an outside entity into  evidence to prove their case. On this week’s episode, Rebecca [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/rebecca-w-wright/] and Steve [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/steven-alsip/] discuss what is required to properly introduce these records and how much they can influence a case. Whether invoices, emails or reports from others, find out how these records can become an influential part of a case, and how to determine if your records have the requisite indicia of trustworthiness.

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Hearsay for a refresher! Original Air Date: July 23, 2021. Rumor has it…there are times when the evidence you are seeking to introduce in court does not come from a witness there in court, but by someone who heard something that someone else said. If you are seeking to introduce this evidence to prove the truth of what was heard, then what you have is hearsay.  Contrary to what you may have heard, hearsay isn’t always inadmissible, and sometimes, hearsay isn’t even (technically) hearsay.  As usual, it depends – on whether the speaker is available, when and why they were speaking, and what motivated that statement. On this week’s installment, Rebecca [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/rebecca-w-wright/] and Steve [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/rebecca-w-wright/] navigate the hearsay rule, its exceptions, and the exceptions to those exceptions to provide insight on precisely when out of court statements can be deemed admissible and when a court should refuse to play telephone.

The MCS-90 endorsement is a federally mandated provision that essentially transforms an insurance policy into a tool to protect the public. While often misunderstood, this endorsement isn’t about shielding the policy holder, but rather ensuring victims are compensated, even when coverage technically doesn’t apply.  If the endorsement requires an insurer to pay for damages that wouldn’t have been covered, however, they are not totally without options.  Instead, they are placed in the unusual position of having a claim against their own insured.  On this week’s episode, Rebecca [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/rebecca-w-wright/] and Steve [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/steven-alsip/] explore the interesting avenues for recovery when an MCS-90 endorsement  results in payment outside of a policy, and how this endorsement allows for recovery from your insured.

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on MCS-90 for a refresher! Original Air Date: July 30, 2019. Big trucks require big coverage – at least according to the Motor Carrier Act of 1980.  To make sure that coverage protects the public in accidents involving these big trucks, the Act requires that coverage to include an MCS-90 endorsement.  What is the MCS-90 endorsement, and what does it mean for a subrogation case involving a tractor-trailer or other large or hazardous vehicle?  Join Rebecca [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/rebecca-w-wright/] and Steve [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/steven-alsip/] as they discuss the MCS-90 endorsement, and how knowing what it says can help you in your negotiations of trucking cases. You can find more information on the Financial Responsibility Requirements for large or hazardous vehicles on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s [https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/form-mcs-90-endorsement-motor-carrier-policies-insurance-public-liability-under] website, and the Form MCS-90 Endorsement here [https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/form-mcs-90-endorsement-motor-carrier-policies-insurance-public-liability-under].