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.
14 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 1887–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Heikengreen2 sentences2008The Heiken court discussed the equitable underpinnings of subrogation law, ultimately concluding that an insurer in Utica’s position “may also have a subrogation claim against the tortfeasor, despite the settlement and release, based on principles of equity that preclude the tortfeasor from using the settlement and release as a defense when the tortfeasor had knowledge of the subrogation rights.” Id. at 830 . 2008When such a release has been given, the subrogated insurer “has a means to seek reimbursement from the insured for its loss based on breach of contract, not on a claim for subrogation,” Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Heiken, 675 N.W.2d 820, 826 (Iowa 2004), and may be able to pursue a subrogation claim against the tortfeasor under certain circumstances. ¶ 10. | 1 | 2 |
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2025As the Supreme Court of Tennessee explained in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Williams, “[u]pon payment by the insurer of a loss, it becomes the real party in interest with respect to the subrogation claim, and has the right to bring suit in the name of the insured, or in its own name.” 541 S.W.2d 587, 590 (Tenn. 1976) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Agency of Natural Resources v. Glens Falls Insurancegreen1 sentence2011DISCUSSION The Vermont Supreme Court has held “that when with knowledge of facts that would place liability for a loss on another insurer, an insurer negotiates and settles a claim against its insured without expressly reserving rights to pursue a cause of action for contribution, indemnity or subrogation at a later time, such a claim is waived.” Agency of Natural Resources v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., 169 Vt. 426, 436 (1999)(citing Jefferson Insurance v. Travelers Insurance, 159 Vt. 46, 50 (1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Gibbs v. Hawaiian Eugenia Corporationgreen1 sentence2008Because a subrogated insurer’s rights against a third-party tortfeasor are derivative of the insured’s rights, see Gibbs v. Hawaiian Eugenia Corp., 966 F.2d 101, 106 (2d Cir. 1992), the subrogation claim is also subject to any defenses the tortfeasor (or its insurer) could assert against the insured. 16 L. | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pacific Rent-All, Inc.green1 sentence2008The subrogated insurer can still recover from the tortfeasor.” Id. at 767 (emphasis omitted). ¶ 16. | 1 | 1 |
Rausch v. Allstate Insurancegreen1 sentence2006Id. at 816. | 1 | 1 |
Zoppi v. Trauriggreen1 sentence2003See Neubauer v. Hostetter, 485 N.W.2d 87, 89-90 (Iowa 1992); Zoppi v. Traurig, 598 A.2d 19, 21 (N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Neubauer v. Hostettergreen1 sentence2003See Neubauer v. Hostetter, 485 N.W.2d 87, 89-90 (Iowa 1992); Zoppi v. Traurig, 598 A.2d 19, 21 (N.J. | 1 | 1 |
York Ins. Group of Maine v. Van Hallgreen1 sentence2000Cf. Van Hall, 704 A.2d at 369 (phrase “to the extent of our payment” contained in insurance contract “does not clearly address the question whether the insured is permitted to retain a prorated portion of the cost of recovery from its obligation under the contract’s subrogation clause”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
National Union Fire Insurance Company v. Grimes
green
2 sentences2013Co. v. Grimes , 153 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 1967). 2013Co. v. Grimes, 153 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 1967). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Union Mutual Fire Insurance v. Joerg
green
2 sentences2006As explained in Union Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Joerg, 2008 VT 27 , 175 Vt. 196 , 824 A.2d 586 , the doctrine of subrogation is premised on theories of promoting restitution and avoiding unjust enrichment. 2006In Joerg , we held that where the lease required the landlord to carry fire insurance on the premises, the insurance was for the mutual benefit of the parties and the tenant was therefore deemed a coinsured and protected against an insurer’s subrogation claim. 2003 VT 27, ¶ 11 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
National Bank v. Cushing
green
2 sentences1916Bank v. Cushing, 53 Vt. 321 ; Underwood v. Metropolitan National Bank, 144 U. S. 669 , 36 L. ed. 586. 1887Bank v. Cushing, 53 Vt. 321 . | 2 | 1887–1916 |
Guiel v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences2025Accordingly, if the insured initiates the lawsuit and, after prevailing in such lawsuit, secures the insurer’s subrogation interest without any contribution from the insurer, the common-fund doctrine justifies reducing the insurer’s subrogation interest by a proportional share of the insured’s attorney’s fees for securing “a judgment or settlement that satisfies the insurer’s subrogated interest.” Guiel, 170 Vt. at 468-69 , 756 A.2d at 780-81 . ¶ 19. 2025Accordingly, if the insured initiates the lawsuit and, after prevailing in such lawsuit, secures the insurer’s subrogation interest without any contribution from the insurer, the common-fund doctrine justifies reducing the insurer’s subrogation interest by a proportional share of the insured’s attorney’s fees for securing “a judgment or settlement that satisfies the insurer’s subrogated interest.” Guiel, 170 Vt. at 468-69 , 756 A.2d at 780-81 . ¶ 19. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jefferson Insurance v. Travelers Insurance
green
1 sentence2011DISCUSSION The Vermont Supreme Court has held “that when with knowledge of facts that would place liability for a loss on another insurer, an insurer negotiates and settles a claim against its insured without expressly reserving rights to pursue a cause of action for contribution, indemnity or subrogation at a later time, such a claim is waived.” Agency of Natural Resources v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., 169 Vt. 426, 436 (1999)(citing Jefferson Insurance v. Travelers Insurance, 159 Vt. 46, 50 (1992)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cushman & Rankin Co. v. Boston & Maine Railroad
green
2 sentences2008Vermont Mutual’s position is also undermined by the holding in the only Vermont case directly on point, Cushman & Rankin Co. v. Boston & Maine R.R., 82 Vt. 390 , 73 A. 1073 (1909), upon which the trial court also relied. 2008Vermont Mutual’s position is also undermined by the holding in the only Vermont case directly on point, Cushman & Rankin Co. v. Boston & Maine R.R., 82 Vt. 390 , 73 A. 1073 (1909), upon which the trial court also relied. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dubie v. Cass-Warner Corporation
green
2 sentences2007The purpose of the amendment was "to save the injured workman's common law action, subject only to the employer's subrogation claim for compensation previously awarded." Dubie, 125 Vt. at 479 , 218 A.2d at 696 . ¶ 20. 2007The purpose of the amendment was "to save the injured workman's common law action, subject only to the employer's subrogation claim for compensation previously awarded." Dubie, 125 Vt. at 479 , 218 A.2d at 696 . ¶ 20. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Windsor School District v. State
green
1 sentence2006As explained in Union Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Joerg, 2008 VT 27 , 175 Vt. 196 , 824 A.2d 586 , the doctrine of subrogation is premised on theories of promoting restitution and avoiding unjust enrichment. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bullard v. Leach
green
1 sentence1980Ward v. Seymour, supra. It should be noted that while many of the older cases speak in terms of the second mortgagee becoming an assignee in equity on redemption, see Ward v. Seymour, supra; Wheeler v. Willard, supra; Bullard v. Leach, supra, further examination reveals that the Court actually was referring to the doctrine of subrogation, not assignment. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Wheeler v. Willard
green
1 sentence1980Ward v. Seymour, supra. It should be noted that while many of the older cases speak in terms of the second mortgagee becoming an assignee in equity on redemption, see Ward v. Seymour, supra; Wheeler v. Willard, supra; Bullard v. Leach, supra, further examination reveals that the Court actually was referring to the doctrine of subrogation, not assignment. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Ward v. Seymour
green
2 sentences1980Ward v. Seymour, supra. It should be noted that while many of the older cases speak in terms of the second mortgagee becoming an assignee in equity on redemption, see Ward v. Seymour, supra; Wheeler v. Willard, supra; Bullard v. Leach, supra, further examination reveals that the Court actually was referring to the doctrine of subrogation, not assignment. 1980Ward v. Seymour, supra. It should be noted that while many of the older cases speak in terms of the second mortgagee becoming an assignee in equity on redemption, see Ward v. Seymour, supra; Wheeler v. Willard, supra; Bullard v. Leach, supra, further examination reveals that the Court actually was referring to the doctrine of subrogation, not assignment. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Underwood v. Metropolitan National Bank
neutral
1 sentence1916Bank v. Cushing, 53 Vt. 321 ; Underwood v. Metropolitan National Bank, 144 U. S. 669 , 36 L. ed. 586. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Keller v. Ashford
green
1 sentence1902Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610 ; Crowell v. Hospital of St. | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.