subrogation claim in Texas

2018Cf. Franks, 936 S.W.2d at 960–61 (holding that a workers-compensation carrier asserting a subrogation claim asserts a claim belonging to the employee).

2016Code Ann. § 417.001 (West 2015) (providing subrogation right for worker’s compensation insurance carriers); Franks v. Sematech, Inc., 936 S.W.2d 959, 960 (Tex. 1997) (construing section 417.001 and its predecessor, stating that “[t]here is but one cause of action for an employee’s injuries, and it belongs to the employee,” that “[i]f the employee claims compensation benefits, the insurance carrier is subrogated to the employee’s rights against a third party who caused the injuries,” that “a carrier who asserts a subrogation claim asserts a claim that belongs to the employee,” that “[t]he carri

2009Contractors, Inc. , 233 S.W.3d 562, 574 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (stating that while construction contract required property owner to provide waivers of subrogation in all separate insurance policies, whether property owner did so "might impact the insurer's obligation to the insured but does not impact the applicability of the waiver in a subrogation claim"); see also Indiana Ins.

2009Contractors, Inc., 233 S.W.3d 562, 574 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (stating that while construction contract required property owner to provide waivers of subrogation in all separate insurance policies, whether property owner did so “might impact the insurer’s obligation to the insured but does not impact the applicability of the waiver in a subrogation claim”); see also Indiana Ins.

2009See Wichita City Lines v. Puckett, 156 Tex. 456 , 295 S.W.2d 894, 899-900 (1956); Landsdowne-Moody v. St.

2009See Wichita City Lines v. Puckett, 156 Tex. 456 , 295 S.W.2d 894, 899-900 (1956); Landsdowne-Moody v. St.

2015See id. at 1458 (“[The subrogation clause] is written for the sole benefit of © 2015 Thomson Reuters.

2012See id. at 1458 (“[The subrogation clause] is written for the sole benefit of the borrower....

1998See Macarangal v. Andrews, 838 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding, leave denied).

1997The Dallas Court in Macarangal v. Andrews, 838 S.W.2d 632, 634-35 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding), held that a trial court’s dismissal of an employee’s tort action did not dispose of the insurance carrier’s subrogation claim and thus the trial court retained jurisdiction to reinstate the employee’s claim.

2007Cf. Guillot v. Hix, 838 S.W.2d 230, 234-35 (Tex.1992) (concluding there is no reason to defer accrual of a carrier’s subrogation claim until the employee’s right to compensation is determined).

2007Cf. Guillot v. Hix, 838 S.W.2d 230, 234-35 (Tex.1992) (concluding there is no reason to defer accrual of a carrier's subrogation claim until the employee's right to compensation is determined).

2024The court recognized that under supreme court precedent, a workers’ compensation insurer who asserts a subrogation claim asserts a “claim that belongs to the employee.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Franks v. Sematech, Inc., 936 –7– S.W.2d 959, 960 (Tex. 1997)).

2024Id.

2012The court explained that when asserting a subrogation claim, “the insurer stands in the shoes of the insured, obtaining only those rights held by the insured against a third party, subject to any defenses held by the third party against the insured.” Id. at 774 .

2008See Mid-Continent, 236 S.W.3d at 776 (explaining that when one pays a debt upon which it is primarily liable, it fails to satisfy “the traditional subrogation requirement that the subrogee pay a debt for which another was primarily liable”).

2025Co., 937 S.W.2d at 439 ; see also Lloyd, 994 S.W.2d at 366 (“Under the Workers’ Com- pensation Act, the State may pursue a subrogation claim in its own name or the S.W.3d 532, 539 (Tex. 2022) (“Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, we should, if possible, interpret a statute in a manner that avoids constitutional infir- mity.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2025Co., 937 S.W.2d at 439; see also Lloyd, 994 S.W.2d at 366 (“Under the Workers’ Com- pensation Act, the State may pursue a subrogation claim in its own name or the S.W.3d 532, 539 (Tex. 2022) (“Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, we should, if possible, interpret a statute in a manner that avoids constitutional infir- mity.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2023ExxonMobil, 568 S.W.3d at 657, 662 .

2023ExxonMobil, 568 S.W.3d at 657, 662 .

2015Express Corp., 78 F.3d 123, 127 (3d Cir.1996).

2007Express Corp., 78 F.3d 123, 127 (3d Cir.1996).

2009Co. v. Erhlich , 880 F. Supp. 513, 520 (W.D.

2009Co. v. Erhlich, 880 F. Supp. 513, 520 (W.D.

2005See Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 170 S.W.3d 755 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, pet. filed)(contraetual subrogation); Texas Ass’n of School Boards, Inc. v. Ward, 18 S.W.3d 256 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied)(statutory subrogation); Esparza, 909 S.W.2d at 551-52 (contractual subrogation).

2000See, e.g., Esparza, 909 S.W.2d at 552 ; Fleetwood, 786 S.W.2d at 554 n. 1 (observing that in a conventional subrogation claim, the express subrogation agreement between the parties may be more accurately labeled an “overriding equity”).

2026Since claimants should already know how much they have received in benefits, and a carrier is entitled to reimbursement for medical payments without proof they were reasonable and necessary, “a carrier’s subrogation claim should hardly ever be contested.” Ledbetter, 251 S.W.3d at 37 .

2026See id. 37 CONCLUSION Having determined that the trial court summarily and erroneously resolved the merits of ETEIA’s subrogation claim and reimbursement amount for benefits paid without a jury trial, bench trial, or motions for summary judgment, we reverse the following orders entered by the trial court: (1) Order on Motion to Determine Amounts of Workers’ Compensation Liens, signed November 20, 2023; (2) Amended Order on Motion to Determine Amounts of Workers’ Compensation Liens, signed November 27, 2023; (3) Amended Order on Motion to Determine Amounts of Workers’ Compensation Liens, signed

2025Co., 937 S.W.2d at 439 ; see also Lloyd, 994 S.W.2d at 366 (“Under the Workers’ Com- pensation Act, the State may pursue a subrogation claim in its own name or the S.W.3d 532, 539 (Tex. 2022) (“Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, we should, if possible, interpret a statute in a manner that avoids constitutional infir- mity.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2025Co., 937 S.W.2d at 439; see also Lloyd, 994 S.W.2d at 366 (“Under the Workers’ Com- pensation Act, the State may pursue a subrogation claim in its own name or the S.W.3d 532, 539 (Tex. 2022) (“Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, we should, if possible, interpret a statute in a manner that avoids constitutional infir- mity.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2023Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 246 S.W.3d 653, 664 (Tex. 2008). 19White, 490 S.W.3d at 490 . 13 Great American argues that nothing in the Act prohibited Great American “from making a subrogation claim against Nationwide” or Northwestern from “accepting Great American’s” demand.

2020See Alvarado, 389 S.W.3d at 560–61.

2014See Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118, 124 (Tex.2010) (citing Ulico Cas.

2013Relying upon one of these cases, Dotson v. Pahl also reached the result we do today. 206 S.W.2d 272, 273 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1947, no writ) (parties were “entitled to invoke the doctrine of subrogation, notwithstanding the failure to comply with [the prior version of the tax lien transfer statute]”). 22 Furthermore, in discussing tax-hen subrogation, the Texas Supreme Court has noted that “[e]ven in the absence of statutory or contractual authorization, a limited right to equitable subrogation may arise in accordance with certain well-established rules of law.” Smart, 597 S.W.2d at 338 .