subrogation claim in Maine

2015The rationale supporting this ruling was advanced by DiLullo v. Joseph, which held, under a commercial lease, that allocating responsibility to the tenant to maintain sufficient insurance in anticipation of a subrogation claim is untenable and 18 would result in economic waste. !d. ~ 15 (discussing DiLullo, 259 Conn. 847 , 792 A.2d 819, 822-23 (Conn. 2002)).

2015The rationale supporting this ruling was advanced by DiLullo v. Joseph, which held, under a commercial lease, that allocating responsibility to the tenant to maintain sufficient insurance in anticipation of a subrogation claim is untenable and 18 would result in economic waste. !d. ~ 15 (discussing DiLullo, 259 Conn. 847 , 792 A.2d 819, 822-23 (Conn. 2002)).

2011Instead, consistent with common business practice, the motel’s insurer paid the claim, and then, pursuant to the subrogation clause of its insurance contract with the motel, assumed the motel’s claim and sued MSAD 43. [¶ 15] We addressed such a claim in North River Insurance Co. v. Snyder, a subrogation action, much like the action here, in which a property owner’s insurer brought a subrogation action against a tenant for fire damage caused by the tenant’s babysitter’s negligent disposal of a cigarette. 2002 ME 146, ¶¶ 3, 4 , 804 A.2d 399 .

2011Instead, consistent with common business practice, the motel’s insurer paid the claim, and then, pursuant to the subrogation clause of its insurance contract with the motel, assumed the motel’s claim and sued MSAD 43. [¶ 15] We addressed such a claim in North River Insurance Co. v. Snyder, a subrogation action, much like the action here, in which a property owner’s insurer brought a subrogation action against a tenant for fire damage caused by the tenant’s babysitter’s negligent disposal of a cigarette. 2002 ME 146, ¶¶ 3, 4 , 804 A.2d 399 .

2009That doctrine provides that absent an express agreement to the contrary, the tenant can be considered co-insured under the landlord's insurance policy because (1) "both parties have an insurable interest in the premises, the former owns the fee, and the latter has a possessory interest"; (2) the landlords purchased fire insurance to "protect such interests ... as a matter of sound business practice the premium paid had to be considered in establishing the rent rate"; and (3) it follows that "the tenant actually paid the premium as part of the monthly rental." Snyder, at ~ 13, 804 A.2d at 403 (

2002The Snyders moved for a summary judgment contending that North River’s subrogation 3 claim was barred because the Snyders were “co-insureds” under the policy North River provided to Cortland. 4 [¶ 5] The Magistrate Judge (Cohen, M.J.) agreed with the Snyders and recommended that a summary judgment be granted because, as a matter of law, they were “implied” co-insureds under the landlord’s insurance policy with North River Insurance, and therefore could not be sued in subrogation (citing, inter alia, Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla.Ct.App.1975)).

1998See Kennedy v. Brunswick Convalescent Ctr., 584 A.2d 678, 681 (Me.1991) (subsequent employer not entitled to apportionment after employee settled claim against previous employer). 2 The subrogation principle has been carried forward into the new Act by subsection 2.

1981Co., supra 213 N.C. at 568, 197 S.E. at 126 ; North-West Insurance Co. v. Western Pacific Ins.

1981Co., supra 213 N.C. at 568, 197 S.E. at 126 ; North-West Insurance Co. v. Western Pacific Ins.