On Subrogation

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].

Subrogation damages, like most civil lawsuits, are a matter of proof.  You need evidence to prove that you and your insured suffered the losses you are claiming.  So what happens when those losses are not for damaged property or medical bills, but for lost profits?  Can you ask the court to look into the future to pay for sales your insured would have made, but for the incident at issue?  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 real scenarios to guide listeners through the legal standards that shape these complex claims and break down the core elements behind successful lost profit recovery cases.  Whether the insured business is a long-term established entity, or a brand new storefront, you may be able to successfully recover lost profits, as long as you have receipts.

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Third Party: Government Entities as a refresher! Original Air Date: May14, 2021 Federal and State Governments are powerful entities. But are they so powerful that they can never be sued for damages? In this installment in our series on third party liability, join Rebecca [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/rebecca-w-wright/] and Steve [https://www.rathbonegroup.com/our-people/steven-alsip/] as they explain why sovereign immunity can be a liability for your case if your third party is a government entity.   The special forums for these claims, the special rules, time limits, and notice requirements that apply, and whether the entity can be sued for subrogation at all depend on which state or political subdivision is at fault.  So buckle up and take notes for your next cross country claim.

Most automobile subrogation cases are the result of negligence, but when the tortfeasor’s driving was reckless or intentional, we sometimes call it Road Rage.  Though a road rage incident may seem like an easy case, it often  proves to be quite complex, calling into question whether the opposing  insurance carrier can deny coverage, potential assumption of risk, or even if an employer could be held responsible for an employee’s rageful driving. In 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 what really happens when road rage turns into a legal battle and break down real legal concepts with insight into how the law handles anger on the asphalt.