Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 25, 2016 by admin

Insurance — Equitable subrogation — Insurer which did not pay the entire settlement in underlying tort litigation was not entitled to equitable subrogation

41 Fla. L. Weekly D726aTop of Form

Insurance
— Equitable subrogation — Where three insurers settled underlying litigation
through a jointly-funded settlement under an agreement that provided that the
insurers could litigate among themselves regarding reallocation of the
settlement funds, insurer which was determined to be liable to another insurer
after trial was not entitled to recover from third insurer the money it had
recovered in settlement before trial from insurer which prevailed at trial —
Insurer which did not pay the entire settlement in underlying tort litigation
was not entitled to equitable subrogation

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant, v.
ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY and FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. 1st District.
Case No. 1D15-0808. Opinion filed March 21, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit
Court for Duval County. James L. Harrison, Judge. Counsel: Mark D. Tinker of
Banker, Lopez, Gassler, P.A., St. Petersburg, Scott W. McMickle and Elenore
Klingler of McMickle, Kurey & Branch, LLP, Alpharetta, GA, for Appellant.
Meagan L. Logan of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee Essex Insurance
Company.

(PER CURIAM.) Appellant, United States Fidelity &
Guaranty Company (USF&G), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary
judgment, requiring USF&G to give $600,000 it received from Federal
Insurance (Federal) to Essex Insurance Company (Essex). Because the record does
not provide an adequate basis for equitable subrogation, we reverse the order
granting summary judgment.

This case arose out of an agreement between USF&G,
Essex, and Federal to settle underlying litigation involving mutual insureds
through a jointly-funded settlement. The agreement provided that the insurers
could litigate among themselves if any of them wished to reallocate the
settlement funds. USF&G and Essex were substituted as plaintiffs for the
insured in an action against Federal, but USF&G and Essex maintained
separate and independent claims against Federal. Before trial, USF&G
settled its claim with Federal for $600,000. Essex and Federal proceeded to
trial, where the trial court found in favor of Federal in the amount of $2
million, Federal’s contribution to the settlement proceeds. Essex entered into
a post-judgment settlement with Federal, but has kept the terms of the
settlement confidential. Subsequently, Essex asserted a claim against USF&G
to recover the $600,000 settlement money USF&G received from Federal.

USF&G and Essex filed cross motions for summary
judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex, finding
that Essex, as the excess carrier, should receive the settlement funds.

In order to support recovery under a theory of equitable
subrogation, Essex must establish: “(1) that it made the payment at issue to protect
its own interests, (2) the payment was non-voluntary, (3) it was not primarily
liable for the debt paid, (4) it paid the entire debt, and (5) subrogation
would not work any injustice to the rights of a third party.” Nova Info.
Sys., Inc. v. Greenwich Ins. Co.
, 365 F. 3d 996, 1005 (11th Cir. 2004)
(quoting Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 646
(Fla. 1999)). Essex cannot establish the fourth element as it did not pay the
entire settlement in the underlying tort litigation.

In light of the independent nature of their respective
claims against Federal, the trial court erred in determining Essex was entitled
to the settlement money USF&G received from Federal. Accordingly, we
reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgment. (WETHERELL and
WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR; MAKAR, J., CONCURS WITH OPINION.)

__________________

(MAKAR, J., concurring with opinion.) Three insurers
collectively contributed $9 million to settle and pay claims arising from a
motor vehicle accident, voluntarily entering an agreement stating that the
insurers would be “subsequently litigating among themselves how the settlement
amount should be paid and allocated among the policies under Florida law.” The
subsequent litigation that resulted was done independently amongst the
insurers, each against the other, none cooperating or coordinating with the
others. Weighing the risks and costs of litigation, USF&G entered a
settlement with and received $600,000 from Federal. The dispute between Essex
and Federal went to trial, resulting in a $2 million judgment against Essex in
Federal’s favor (later settled for an undisclosed amount).

In this appeal, the issue is what legal right does Essex now
have to the $600,000 of settlement funds that USF&G received from Federal,
funds that USF&G sought and successfully obtained at its own expense
through its independent litigation efforts against Federal? None, it appears.
Contractual subrogation doesn’t apply because no contractual relationship
exists between the parties (the trial court’s reference to the Essex policy
notwithstanding); and neither equitable subrogation nor equitable contribution
was established on this record to support Essex’s claimed entitlement to the
settlement funds that USF&G procured for itself. In essence, the parties’
three-page agreement says the three insurers may litigate “how the settlement
amount” is to be allocated, but it leaves ambiguous by what legal yardstick
that is to be measured. The record does not indicate whether this is a common
or uncommon way for insurers to resolve disputes of this magnitude, and no
party has pointed us to any statute or case that specifies the standards or
manner by which such disputes are required to be resolved. Absent a definitive
guidepost, the parties would have us resolve their dispute by applying general
principles of equity. As such, I agree that the trial court should not have
awarded to Essex the funds that USF&G obtained through its own independent
efforts from Federal, such that the judgment against USF&G should be
vacated and judgment entered in its favor.
 

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • 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
  • 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
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982