10 Virginia opinions name it 4 courts 1921–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ferrellgas, Inc. v. Yeisergreen2 sentences2023Compare Ferrellgas, Inc. v. Yeiser, 247 P.3d 1022, 1027-28 (Colo. 2011) (holding that an insurance company’s settlement of a nearly $200,000 subrogation claim for $175,000 with the tortfeasor reduced the insured subrogor’s tort judgment by the full $200,000), with Sunnyland Farms, Inc. v. Cent. 2023Compare Ferrelgas, Inc. v. Yeiser, 247 P.3d 1022, 1027-28 (Colo. 2011) (holding that an insurance company’s settlement of a nearly $200,000 subrogation claim for $175,000 with the tortfeasor reduced the insured subrogor’s tort judgment by the full $200,000), with Sunnyland Farms, Inc. v. Cent. | 3 | 3 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Alan Steady v. Richard Kerngreen1 sentence2023Co. v. Kern, 976 N.E.2d 716, 720 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (a subrogation clause “provides that once an insured receives payment from a third-party tortfeasor, the insurer is entitled to reimbursement for the amount of benefits it previously paid to the insured”). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Vanderpoolgreen1 sentence2020Exchange v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 281 Va. 612, 619 (2011); Walker v. Vanderpool, 225 Va. 266, 271 (1983). 2 Under Code § 38.2-207, “when any insurer pays an insured under a contract of insurance which provides that the insurer becomes subrogated to the rights of the insured against any other party[,] the insurer may enforce the legal liability of the other party.” 5 With this in mind, and because the question before this Court is whether Alba benefitted from a subrogation waiver, we must necessarily look to the source of the waiver itself. | 1 | 1 |
Farmers Ins. Exchange v. ENTERPRISE LEASINGgreen1 sentence2020Exchange v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 281 Va. 612, 619 (2011); Walker v. Vanderpool, 225 Va. 266, 271 (1983). 2 Under Code § 38.2-207, “when any insurer pays an insured under a contract of insurance which provides that the insurer becomes subrogated to the rights of the insured against any other party[,] the insurer may enforce the legal liability of the other party.” 5 With this in mind, and because the question before this Court is whether Alba benefitted from a subrogation waiver, we must necessarily look to the source of the waiver itself. | 1 | 1 |
Sykes v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.green2 sentences2001Code § 65.2-309; Sykes v. Stone & Webster Eng’r Corp., 186 Va. 116, 120-21 , 41 S.E.2d 469, 471 (1947). 2001Code § 65.2-309; Sykes v. Stone & Webster Eng’r Corp., 186 Va. 116, 120-21 , 41 S.E.2d 469, 471 (1947). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Monterey Corporation v. Hart, Ex'r
green
1 sentence2020In an opinion letter, the court relied on Monterey Corp. v. Hart, 216 Va. 843 (1976), for the proposition that a “tenant can be relieved from common law negligence liability for fire damage if it was the intent of the parties that the tenant be relieved from such liability.” The court looked to the Declaration, the Bylaws, and the Rules & Regulations to find that “the intent of the condominium instruments and the common sense application of the provisions thereof” was that Alba, as a tenant “bound by all the requirements of an owner under the condominium instruments,” obtained the same benefit | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Federal Land Bank v. Joynes
green
1 sentence2001In support of its argument that subrogation is proper in this action, State Farm cites our opinion in Federal Land Bank v. Joynes, 179 Va. 394 , 18 S.E.2d 91 (1942), and states that the doctrine of subrogation “is a creature of equity which arises by operation of law; it is not dependent upon contract or privity between the parties, but rather is a creature of equity and is founded upon the principles of natural justice.” State Farm’s rough paraphrase from our opinion ignores the sentence that precedes the paraphrased passage, where we clearly stated: “Subrogation is the substitution of anothe | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bollman Hat Company v. Kevin T. Root Dale E. Anstine, P.C. Bollman Hat Company, as Sponsor of the Bollman Hat Company Health and Welfare Benefits Plan
green
1 sentence1998Indeed, in the principal case relied upon by PRC, Bollman Hat Co. v. Root, supra, the court in dicta noted the seeming unfairness of applying its holding to cases “where a plan participant’s third party recovery is less than the plan’s subrogation claim plus attorney’s fees.” 112 F.3d at 117. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Ursin v. Ins. Guaranty Ass'n
green
1 sentence1992The court, citing the case of Ursin v. Insurance Guaranty Association, 412 So. 2d 1285 (La. 1982), allowed the claim. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
C. B. Van Nostrand & Co. v. Virginia Zinc & Chemical Corp.
green
1 sentence1954The report of the commissioner, confirmed by the trial court, found “that the renewal of the partnership note by the corporation which assumed it, was not a novation of the original debt, and the collateral held by the creditor was not released,or affected thereby.” We said in Waynesboro Bank v. Smith, 151 Va. 481, 491 , 145 S. E. 302 : “In Van Nostrand & Co. v. Virginia Zinc etc., Co., 126 Va. 311 , 101 S. E. 65 , it is said: ‘A mortgage secures a debt, and not the note, or bond, or other evidence of it. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Waynesboro National Bank v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1954The report of the commissioner, confirmed by the trial court, found “that the renewal of the partnership note by the corporation which assumed it, was not a novation of the original debt, and the collateral held by the creditor was not released,or affected thereby.” We said in Waynesboro Bank v. Smith, 151 Va. 481, 491 , 145 S. E. 302 : “In Van Nostrand & Co. v. Virginia Zinc etc., Co., 126 Va. 311 , 101 S. E. 65 , it is said: ‘A mortgage secures a debt, and not the note, or bond, or other evidence of it. 1954The report of the commissioner, confirmed by the trial court, found “that the renewal of the partnership note by the corporation which assumed it, was not a novation of the original debt, and the collateral held by the creditor was not released,or affected thereby.” We said in Waynesboro Bank v. Smith, 151 Va. 481, 491 , 145 S. E. 302 : “In Van Nostrand & Co. v. Virginia Zinc etc., Co., 126 Va. 311 , 101 S. E. 65 , it is said: ‘A mortgage secures a debt, and not the note, or bond, or other evidence of it. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Renick v. Ludington
green
1 sentence1921Enc’l Law (2nd Ed.) H. 516, 518-520; Henderson v. Huey, 45 Ala. 276 ; Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa 323 ; Bedwell v. Gephart, 67 Iowa 44 , 24 N. W. 585 . [7] It is urged in argument for the sureties, that, by reason of the doctrine of subrogation, if the sureties are required to pay the Upshur & Co. debt, they are entitled to be subrogated to the benefit of the rights at one time held by the bank against the individual partners of Upshur & Co. and any property they may accumulate in future, in order to re-emburse themselves; and that the release by the receiver of these rights defeated the sure | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Gurnee v. Bausemer & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1921Enc’l Law (2nd Ed.) H. 516, 518-520; Henderson v. Huey, 45 Ala. 276 ; Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa 323 ; Bedwell v. Gephart, 67 Iowa 44 , 24 N. W. 585 . [7] It is urged in argument for the sureties, that, by reason of the doctrine of subrogation, if the sureties are required to pay the Upshur & Co. debt, they are entitled to be subrogated to the benefit of the rights at one time held by the bank against the individual partners of Upshur & Co. and any property they may accumulate in future, in order to re-emburse themselves; and that the release by the receiver of these rights defeated the sure | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Daniel's Ex'or v. Wharton
neutral
2 sentences1921Enc’l Law (2nd Ed.) H. 516, 518-520; Henderson v. Huey, 45 Ala. 276 ; Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa 323 ; Bedwell v. Gephart, 67 Iowa 44 , 24 N. W. 585 . [7] It is urged in argument for the sureties, that, by reason of the doctrine of subrogation, if the sureties are required to pay the Upshur & Co. debt, they are entitled to be subrogated to the benefit of the rights at one time held by the bank against the individual partners of Upshur & Co. and any property they may accumulate in future, in order to re-emburse themselves; and that the release by the receiver of these rights defeated the sure 1921Enc’l Law (2nd Ed.) H. 516, 518-520; Henderson v. Huey, 45 Ala. 276 ; Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa 323 ; Bedwell v. Gephart, 67 Iowa 44 , 24 N. W. 585 . [7] It is urged in argument for the sureties, that, by reason of the doctrine of subrogation, if the sureties are required to pay the Upshur & Co. debt, they are entitled to be subrogated to the benefit of the rights at one time held by the bank against the individual partners of Upshur & Co. and any property they may accumulate in future, in order to re-emburse themselves; and that the release by the receiver of these rights defeated the sure | 1 | 1921–1921 |
City of Maquoketa v. Willey
green
1 sentence1921Enc’l Law (2nd Ed.) H. 516, 518-520; Henderson v. Huey, 45 Ala. 276 ; Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa 323 ; Bedwell v. Gephart, 67 Iowa 44 , 24 N. W. 585 . [7] It is urged in argument for the sureties, that, by reason of the doctrine of subrogation, if the sureties are required to pay the Upshur & Co. debt, they are entitled to be subrogated to the benefit of the rights at one time held by the bank against the individual partners of Upshur & Co. and any property they may accumulate in future, in order to re-emburse themselves; and that the release by the receiver of these rights defeated the sure | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Bedwell v. Gephart
green
2 sentences1921Enc’l Law (2nd Ed.) H. 516, 518-520; Henderson v. Huey, 45 Ala. 276 ; Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa 323 ; Bedwell v. Gephart, 67 Iowa 44 , 24 N. W. 585 . [7] It is urged in argument for the sureties, that, by reason of the doctrine of subrogation, if the sureties are required to pay the Upshur & Co. debt, they are entitled to be subrogated to the benefit of the rights at one time held by the bank against the individual partners of Upshur & Co. and any property they may accumulate in future, in order to re-emburse themselves; and that the release by the receiver of these rights defeated the sure 1921Enc’l Law (2nd Ed.) H. 516, 518-520; Henderson v. Huey, 45 Ala. 276 ; Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa 323 ; Bedwell v. Gephart, 67 Iowa 44 , 24 N. W. 585 . [7] It is urged in argument for the sureties, that, by reason of the doctrine of subrogation, if the sureties are required to pay the Upshur & Co. debt, they are entitled to be subrogated to the benefit of the rights at one time held by the bank against the individual partners of Upshur & Co. and any property they may accumulate in future, in order to re-emburse themselves; and that the release by the receiver of these rights defeated the sure | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.