The Subrogation Strategist

In Progressive Southeastern Ins. Co. v. B&T Bulk, LLC, No. 21S-CT-496, 2022 Ind. LEXIS 131, the Supreme Court of Indiana (Supreme Court) reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Court of Appeals), ruling that Form MCS-90 (MSC-90) endorsements on insurance policies do not apply to purely intrastate trips. In reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, the court found that the Indiana Legislature’s incorporation of the federal Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (MCA) into the state code did not expand the MCA’s scope to include intrastate trips.Continue Reading

Courts across the country have historically taken positions encouraging settlements between civil litigants. Thus, as long as there is good faith involved in the negotiation process, settlements and their effects on other parties are generally upheld. Recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (District Court) considered whether a settlement between the plaintiff and one of several defendants met the good faith standard, thereby barring claims for contribution and indemnity from the co-defendants.Continue Reading

In N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 719 Fed. Appx. 691 (9^th Cir. 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Appeals Court) addressed the question of whether an insurer, N.Y. Marine & General Insurance Company (N.Y. Marine), could recover from a cargo carrier under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, if the insured’s loss claim did not state a specified amount of money. Finding that § 14706 requires that a party filing a cargo loss claim state a specified or determinable amount of money, the Appeals Court affirmed the district court’s holding that neither the carrier, Estes Express Lines, Inc. (Estes) nor the broker, Exfreight Zeta, Inc. (Zeta), was liable to N.Y. Marine.Continue Reading

In Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Agility Logistics Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104179 (S.D.N.Y.), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the “novel question” of whether the Montreal Convention allows recovery of inspection costs when there is no physical damage to the cargo at issue. Although acknowledging that its holding was, arguably, absurd, the court held that, based on the plain language of Article 18 of the Montreal Convention, the subrogating insurer could not recover the inspection costs its insured incurred.Continue Reading