Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1924–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Wileygreen2 sentences2004“The doctrine of subrogation ... is not to be applied if the result is injury or prejudice to the person whose rights are sought to be used by another.” Brown , 385 Mass, at 760, quoting Hill v. Wiley, 295 Mass. 396, 403 (1936). 1982“The doctrine of subrogation, which rests ‘upon natural justice and equity’ (Amory v. Lowell, 1 Allen 504 , 507 [1861]), is not to be applied if the result is injury or prejudice to the person whose rights are sought to be used by another.” Hill v. Wiley, 295 Mass. 396, 403 (1936). | 2 | 3 |
Lumber Mutual Insurance v. Zoltek Corp.green2 sentences2006See Lexington, 419 Mass. at 714 (where a subrogation claim was defeated on summary judgment because the lease contained an unqualified yield-up clause excepting fire damage and essentially made the landlord and tenant co-insureds); Lumber Mutual, 419 Mass. at 707 (same regarding an explosion on the leased premises). 2002Co. v. Zoltek Corp., 419 Mass. 704 (1995), we affirmed an order of summary judgment for a commercial tenant on a subrogation claim by the landlord’s insurer for negligently causing an explosion that damaged the leased premises. | 1 | 2 |
French Lumber Co. v. Commercial Realty & Finance Co.green2 sentences2004Co., Inc., 346 Mass. 716, 719 (1964), that “no provision of the code purports to affect the fundamental equitable doctrine of subrogation,” held that the doctrine of subrogation allows a surety to be exempt from the system of priorities established by the UCC. 2 Id. at 849 . 2004Co., Inc., 346 Mass. 716, 719 (1964), that “no provision of the code purports to affect the fundamental equitable doctrine of subrogation,” held that the doctrine of subrogation allows a surety to be exempt from the system of priorities established by the UCC. 2 Id. at 849 . | 1 | 2 |
Frost v. Porter Leasing Corp.green2 sentences2002Upon payment, the insurer is entitled to share the benefit of any rights of recovery the insured may have against a tortfeasor for the same loss covered by the insurance." Frost, 386 Mass. at 427 (emphasis added). 1995Id. at 427 . | 1 | 2 |
MiddleOak Insurance v. Tri-State Sprinkler Corp.green2 sentences2020Co. v. Tri-State Sprinkler Corp., 77 Mass. App. Ct. 336, 338 (2010) (holding that the subrogated insurance company cannot sue a subcontractor for post-construction property damages because of the subrogation waiver in the AIA contract). 2020However, the MiddleOak court expressly rejected that position, finding the federal district court's reading in Lumbermens "too crabbed" and concluding that "waiver of subrogation results . . . if the owner secures coverage for the property after final payment." MiddleOak, 77 Mass. App. Ct. at 339 . | 1 | 1 |
Dighton v. FED. PAC. ELEC. CO. SERT, JACKSON & ASSOC.green1 sentence2012In support of this argument, Suffolk relies on two cases: Dighton v. Federal Pacific Electric Co., 399 Mass. 687, 690-92 (1987), and Correira v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 388 Mass. 342, 346 (1983). 1 In Dighton , plaintiffs sued to recover for injuries suffered in a fire in their apartment; they alleged that defendant had negligently manufactured a circuit breaker that allegedly caused the fire. | 1 | 1 |
Best Friends Pet Care, Inc. v. Design Learned, Inc.green1 sentence2011See Behr v. Hook, 173 Vt. 122, 130-131 (2001); Best Friends Pet Care, Inc. v. Design Learned, Inc., 77 Conn. App. 167, 179-180 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Behr v. Hookgreen1 sentence2011See Behr v. Hook, 173 Vt. 122, 130-131 (2001); Best Friends Pet Care, Inc. v. Design Learned, Inc., 77 Conn. App. 167, 179-180 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Penn Avenue Place Associates, L.P. v. Century Steel Erectors, Inc.green1 sentence2008Assoc. v. Century Steel Erectors, Inc., 798 A.2d 256, 259 (Pa.Super.Ct. 2002) (waivers of subrogation are a matter of contract and thus the public policy concerns relating to exculpatory clauses are inapplicable). | 1 | 1 |
Lexington Insurance v. All Regions Chemical Labs, Inc.green1 sentence2006See Lexington, 419 Mass. at 714 (where a subrogation claim was defeated on summary judgment because the lease contained an unqualified yield-up clause excepting fire damage and essentially made the landlord and tenant co-insureds); Lumber Mutual, 419 Mass. at 707 (same regarding an explosion on the leased premises). | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Silvagreen1 sentence2003Peterson v. Silva, 428 Mass. 751, 753 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Creswell v. Medical West Community Health Plan, Inc.green1 sentence1999See Creswell, supra at 330-331 . | 1 | 1 |
Sutton v. Jondahlgreen1 sentence1997Co. v. Capri, 101 Nev. 429 , 705 P.2d 659 (1985) (Nevada Supreme Court held that, absent an express lease provision establishing the tenant’s liability for loss for negligently started fires, the tenant is, for the purpose of defeating an insurer’s subrogation claim, an implied co-insured of the landlord.); Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478, 482 (Okla.App. 1975) (‘To suggest the fire insurance [of the lessor] does not extend to the insurable interest of an occupying tenant is to ignore the realities of urban apartment and single-family dwelling renting”); Tate v. Trialco Scrap, Inc. and CDM, 745 | 1 | 1 |
Blue Cross of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Travalinegreen2 sentences1995Travaline , at 589. 3 The SJC declined to express any opinion regarding the validity of a claim pursuant to the subrogation clause by the insurer directly against the insured or what allocation should be made among various claims when settlement is for an amount less than necessary to fully reimburse an accident victim, issues which are now presently before the court. 1995Id. at 590 . | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Leightongreen1 sentence1995The object of subrogation is to prevent injustice and one who seeks equity must do equity.” Brown v. Leighton, 385 Mass. 757, 760 (1982) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Idaho Hospital Service, Inc.green1 sentence1974Inc. 89 Idaho 499, 501 (1965). 12 A likely reason for the insertion of the second sentence was to try to avoid those cases (now in a minority) holding invalid and inoperative a subrogation clause by which a service organization like Blue Cross or an insurer under a medical payments clause was to be subrogated to the subscriber’s or insured’s cause of action for personal injuries against the tortfeasor. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
North American Specialty Insurance v. Payton Construction Corp.
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Correia v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
green
1 sentence2012In support of this argument, Suffolk relies on two cases: Dighton v. Federal Pacific Electric Co., 399 Mass. 687, 690-92 (1987), and Correira v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 388 Mass. 342, 346 (1983). 1 In Dighton , plaintiffs sued to recover for injuries suffered in a fire in their apartment; they alleged that defendant had negligently manufactured a circuit breaker that allegedly caused the fire. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Alaska Insurance Co. v. RCA Alaska Communications, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997Tenn. 1989); Alaska Insurance Co. v. RCA Alaska Communications Inc., Alaska, 623 P.2d 1216 (1981); Rock Springs Realty, Inc. v. Waid, 392 S.W.2d 270 (1965); Cascade Trailer Court v. Beeson, 749 P.2d 761 (Wash. App. 1988). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tate v. Trialco Scrap, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997Co. v. Capri, 101 Nev. 429 , 705 P.2d 659 (1985) (Nevada Supreme Court held that, absent an express lease provision establishing the tenant’s liability for loss for negligently started fires, the tenant is, for the purpose of defeating an insurer’s subrogation claim, an implied co-insured of the landlord.); Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478, 482 (Okla.App. 1975) (‘To suggest the fire insurance [of the lessor] does not extend to the insurable interest of an occupying tenant is to ignore the realities of urban apartment and single-family dwelling renting”); Tate v. Trialco Scrap, Inc. and CDM, 745 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Rock Springs Realty, Inc. v. Waid
green
1 sentence1997Tenn. 1989); Alaska Insurance Co. v. RCA Alaska Communications Inc., Alaska, 623 P.2d 1216 (1981); Rock Springs Realty, Inc. v. Waid, 392 S.W.2d 270 (1965); Cascade Trailer Court v. Beeson, 749 P.2d 761 (Wash. App. 1988). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Cascade Trailer Court v. Beeson
green
1 sentence1997Tenn. 1989); Alaska Insurance Co. v. RCA Alaska Communications Inc., Alaska, 623 P.2d 1216 (1981); Rock Springs Realty, Inc. v. Waid, 392 S.W.2d 270 (1965); Cascade Trailer Court v. Beeson, 749 P.2d 761 (Wash. App. 1988). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Safeco Insurance v. Capri
green
2 sentences1997Co. v. Capri, 101 Nev. 429 , 705 P.2d 659 (1985) (Nevada Supreme Court held that, absent an express lease provision establishing the tenant’s liability for loss for negligently started fires, the tenant is, for the purpose of defeating an insurer’s subrogation claim, an implied co-insured of the landlord.); Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478, 482 (Okla.App. 1975) (‘To suggest the fire insurance [of the lessor] does not extend to the insurable interest of an occupying tenant is to ignore the realities of urban apartment and single-family dwelling renting”); Tate v. Trialco Scrap, Inc. and CDM, 745 1997Co. v. Capri, 101 Nev. 429 , 705 P.2d 659 (1985) (Nevada Supreme Court held that, absent an express lease provision establishing the tenant’s liability for loss for negligently started fires, the tenant is, for the purpose of defeating an insurer’s subrogation claim, an implied co-insured of the landlord.); Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478, 482 (Okla.App. 1975) (‘To suggest the fire insurance [of the lessor] does not extend to the insurable interest of an occupying tenant is to ignore the realities of urban apartment and single-family dwelling renting”); Tate v. Trialco Scrap, Inc. and CDM, 745 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
McCoy v. Bell
green
2 sentences1982“The doctrine of subrogation, which rests ‘upon natural justice and equity’ (Amory v. Lowell, 1 Allen 504 , 507 [1861]), is not to be applied if the result is injury or prejudice to the person whose rights are sought to be used by another.” Hill v. Wiley, 295 Mass. 396, 403 (1936). 1982"The doctrine of subrogation, which rests `upon natural justice and equity' ( Amory v. Lowell, 1 Allen 504 , 507 [1861]), is not to be applied if the result is injury or prejudice to the person whose rights are sought to be used by another." Hill v. Wiley, 295 Mass. 396, 403 (1936). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Hughes Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1982In so concluding, the court noted that the Compensation Act considers an employer who fails to obtain insurance “to be a wrongdoer, and properly subject to penalties rather than one to be favored and accorded the benefit of the doctrine of subrogation.” Id. at 600 . 1982In so concluding, the court noted that the Compensation Act considers an employer who fails to obtain insurance "to be a wrongdoer, and properly subject to penalties rather than one to be favored and accorded the benefit of the doctrine of subrogation." Id. at 600 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Alexander v. F. L. Smiths Machine Co.
neutral
1 sentence1924Smithe Machine Co. 248 Mass. 436 , Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co. 222 U. S. 300 , Everett v. Judson, 228 U. S. 474 , Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co. 239 U. S. 268 , Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Wills, 240 U. S. 642 , the plaintiff could not lawfully have made such payments, unless it was required to do so by an express contract or by a non-contractual obligation which was imposed by virtue of some mechanic’s lien, by virtue of some special statute, or by virtue of the doctrine of subrogation. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1924Smithe Machine Co. 248 Mass. 436 , Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co. 222 U. S. 300 , Everett v. Judson, 228 U. S. 474 , Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co. 239 U. S. 268 , Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Wills, 240 U. S. 642 , the plaintiff could not lawfully have made such payments, unless it was required to do so by an express contract or by a non-contractual obligation which was imposed by virtue of some mechanic’s lien, by virtue of some special statute, or by virtue of the doctrine of subrogation. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Everett v. Judson
green
1 sentence1924Smithe Machine Co. 248 Mass. 436 , Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co. 222 U. S. 300 , Everett v. Judson, 228 U. S. 474 , Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co. 239 U. S. 268 , Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Wills, 240 U. S. 642 , the plaintiff could not lawfully have made such payments, unless it was required to do so by an express contract or by a non-contractual obligation which was imposed by virtue of some mechanic’s lien, by virtue of some special statute, or by virtue of the doctrine of subrogation. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Bailey v. Baker Ice MacHine Co.
green
1 sentence1924Smithe Machine Co. 248 Mass. 436 , Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co. 222 U. S. 300 , Everett v. Judson, 228 U. S. 474 , Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co. 239 U. S. 268 , Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Wills, 240 U. S. 642 , the plaintiff could not lawfully have made such payments, unless it was required to do so by an express contract or by a non-contractual obligation which was imposed by virtue of some mechanic’s lien, by virtue of some special statute, or by virtue of the doctrine of subrogation. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Fairbanks Steam Shovel Company v. Wills, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Federal Contracting Company
green
1 sentence1924Smithe Machine Co. 248 Mass. 436 , Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co. 222 U. S. 300 , Everett v. Judson, 228 U. S. 474 , Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co. 239 U. S. 268 , Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Wills, 240 U. S. 642 , the plaintiff could not lawfully have made such payments, unless it was required to do so by an express contract or by a non-contractual obligation which was imposed by virtue of some mechanic’s lien, by virtue of some special statute, or by virtue of the doctrine of subrogation. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.