
The obvious answer to the question is “yes” if there is a viable target. However, since I work for the subrogation department of a law firm, some may consider the answer to be a bit biased. Despite any misplaced perception of bias, there are benefits to insureds, insurers and society as a whole when insurers pursue subrogation. These benefits support having insurers pursue subrogation.
Benefits to Insured
You might ask how subrogation benefits insureds, who may be inconvenienced by perceived delays in pursuing an investigation of targets and often have to assist the insurer with its pursuit subrogation. As an initial matter, delays with respect to investigating an occurrence such as a fire or a water leak are not typically delayed as a result of subrogation. An insurer generally involves a subrogation professional from the outset of an investigation in order to not only identify possible subrogation targets, but also to determine what occurred, and why. Absent determining what occurred and why, an insurer cannot make an informed decision with respect to determining whether there is coverage for the loss. Thus, while investigations and the resolution of a claim may involve subrogation professionals, investigations are not unnecessarily delayed by that involvement.
In addition, while an insured generally has to cooperate with subrogation efforts, requiring cooperation from the insured can also provide a benefit to the insured. For instance, if an insured incurs a deductible, insurers pursuing subrogation can – and many do - include the insured’s deductible in subrogation demands. Obviously, including a demand for an insured’s deductible can lead to the return of all or part of the deductible to the insured. Similarly, subrogation can – with the use of a joint prosecution agreement - lead to the recovery of out-of-pocket, uninsured losses and, possibly, the return of large, self-insured retentions.
Another possible benefit to insureds is the subrogation professional’s investigation itself. If an insured has uninsured losses or a large, self-insured retention that it wants to try to recover by itself, the insured and insurer may proceed in a cooperative manner. In that case, the insured will benefit from evidence gathered by the insurer during the subrogation investigation. In addition, the insurer’s subrogation investigation helps the insured to identify targets and produce theories of liability to use against the target.
Benefits to Insurer
While the insured can benefit from subrogation, so can the insurer. For instance, the insurer can benefit from goodwill generated by attempting to recover the insured’s deductible. In addition, if the insurer’s premiums or rates are lowered based on subrogation recoveries, these lower premiums can benefit the insurer as lower premium rates may attract more customers.
Insurers can also see additional benefits associated with an increase in profitability, which insurers can, and probably do, measure. Without subrogation, insurers only pay out claims, with no recovery of benefits paid.
There are also benefits to insurers that are more difficult to monetize. For instance, if claims handling staff – i.e., adjusters – are trained to recognize subrogation opportunities, they likely have additional training in tort law, products liability, the statute of limitations and/or repose and spoliation. Having a better trained claims department benefits insurers in ways that are often difficult to quantify. Clearly, however, adjusters who have more training can provide better customer service.
Further, trained claims handing staff should – because of their subrogation training – have a better understanding of the need to avoid the spoliation of evidence. In addition, better training allows adjusters to understand that, in order to avoid spoliation claims, they may need to – and should - involve a subrogation professional at the early stages of the investigation. Being better trained also allows adjusters to timely recognize recovery opportunities.
Insurers, moreover, can benefit from utilizing outside subrogation professionals because these outside professionals typically work with a national network of experts on a regular basis. These experts can assist the subrogation professional – such as an attorney – with developing a case and/or identifying trends, such as repeat product failure claims. In addition, outside subrogation professionals can develop relationships with liability adjusters and/or third-party administrators handling the defense of a product liability or other claim. The relationships developed by subrogation professionals will assist insurers with moving a case forward.
Societal Benefits
Insurers who pursue subrogation can also benefit society. For instance, when insurers pursue products liability claims that would otherwise not be pursued and/or conduct accident investigations, they increase safety for all. This increased safety may be manifested by a change in the behavior of the target manufacturer or the person/company that caused the loss. In addition, any change in behavior may prevent future accidents from happening.
Society also benefits from subrogation because subrogating insurers hold companies and/or individuals liable for their actions. Further, insurers benefit society if they and/or their experts identify trends, such as recurring product failures. This identification of trends leads to increased safety for all.
Thus, not only are there societal benefits to pursuing subrogation, there are also benefits for insureds and subrogating insurers. Insurers who are not pursuing subrogation, therefore, should reconsider their positions because subrogation provides many benefits, only some of which can be measured by an analysis of how much the insurer recovers in subrogation.
To answer the question posed: insurers should subrogate.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Minnesota
- California
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- CPSC Warning
- Rhode Island
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- New York
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Evidence
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Arkansas
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Product Liability
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
Tags
- Subrogation
- Products Liability
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- California
- Subro Sessions
- Experts
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Experts – Daubert
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Contracts
- Negligence
- Civil Procedure
- Landlord-Tenant
- Experts - Reliability
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Certificate of Merit
- Louisiana
- Amazon-eBay
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- New York
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- Experts – Qualifications
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Arizona
- Sutton Doctrine
- West Virginia
- Indiana
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Evidence
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Connecticut
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Limitation of Liability
- Apportionment
- Expert Qualifications
- Exculpatory Clause
- Amazon
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Lithium-ion battery
- Burden of Proof
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Third Party
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Accepted Work
- Malfunction Theory
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Additional Insured
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Inverse Condemnation
- Jury Instructions
- Food and Beverage
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Medical Benefits
- Montreal Convention
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
Authors
Archives
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013