equitable subrogation doctrine (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

equitable subrogation doctrine in Colorado

8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Hicks v. Londregreen
colo · 2005 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2009–2017
2 sentences

2017See id. (reviewing de novo the legal question of whether on the undisputed facts presented, the doctrine of equitable subrogation applied).

2009Hicks v. Londre, 107 P.3d 1009 (Colo.App.2004), aff'd, 125 P.3d 452 (Colo.2005).

12
In Re Estate of Boydgreen
coloctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018Without such an allegation, the claim is not legally viable. 6 A. In the Context of Colorado Insurance Law, the Claim of Equitable Subrogation Is Identified As Derivative of the Rights of the Insured ¶ 15 Subrogation is “a creature of equity having for its purpose the working out of an equitable adjustment between the parties by securing the ultimate discharge of a debt by the person who in equity and good conscience ought to pay it.” In re Estate of Boyd, 972 P.2d 1075, 1077 (Colo. App. 1998) (quoting United Sec.

11
Continental Divide Insurance Co. v. Western Skies Management, Inc.green
coloctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008Co. v. Western Skies Management, Inc., 107 P.3d 1145, 1148 (Colo.App.2004); accord Cotter Corp. v. Am.

11
Hutchinson v. Hutchinsongreen
colo · 1961 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006See Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 149 Colo. 38, 40 , 867 P.2d 594 , 596 (1961) ("If from the allegations of the complaint the plaintiff is entitled to relief under any 'theory,' it is sufficient to state a claim."); Fire Ins.

11
Bankers Trust Co. v. United Statesgreen
kanctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See Bankers Trust Co. v. United States, 29 Kan.App.2d 215 , 25 P.3d 877, 882 (2001).

2005See Bankers Trust Co. v. United States, 29 Kan.App.2d 215 , 25 P.3d 877, 882 (2001).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Hicks v. Londre green
coloctapp · 2005
2 sentences

2009Hicks v. Londre, 107 P.3d 1009 (Colo.App.2004), aff'd, 125 P.3d 452 (Colo.2005).

2005Hicks, 107 P.3d at 1011-12 .

22005–2009
Goodson v. American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin green
colo · 2004
1 sentence

2018Goodson, 89 P.3d at 415 . ¶ 40 However, in concluding that PPIC must plead and prove that TDC acted in bad faith, we reject TDC’s proposed two-part bad faith test, as set forth in Continental Casualty Co. v. Reserve Insurance Co., 238 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. 1976), that would also require proof of the insured’s liability.

12018–2018
Continental Casualty Co. v. Reserve Insurance green
minn · 1976
1 sentence

2018Goodson, 89 P.3d at 415 . ¶ 40 However, in concluding that PPIC must plead and prove that TDC acted in bad faith, we reject TDC’s proposed two-part bad faith test, as set forth in Continental Casualty Co. v. Reserve Insurance Co., 238 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. 1976), that would also require proof of the insured’s liability.

12018–2018
Essex Insurance v. Tyler green
cod · 2004
1 sentence

2008Co. v. Tyler Although Colorado state courts have not addressed this subrogation question, in Essex Insurance Co. v. Tyler, 309 F.Supp.2d 1270 (D.Colo.2004), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado concluded that the Colorado Supreme Court would not permit an equitable subrogation claim based on an attorney's professional negligence for the same policy reasons that prohibit the assignment of such claims.

12008–2008
Holt v. Mitchell green
colo · 1935
2 sentences

2005Equitable Subrogation with Purchasers and New Mortgagee At trial, the Londres and Chase cited four cases in which Colorado courts applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation: Capitol National Bank v. Holmes, 43 Colo. 154 , 95 P. 314 (1908); Lawson v. Whitley, 69 Colo. 346 , 194 P. 355 (1920); Holt v. Mitchell, 96 Colo. 412 , 43 P.2d 388 (1935); and Western Federal Savings Loan v. Ben Gay, Inc., supra. The trial court distinguished Lawson, Holt, and Western Federal on the basis that in those cases the party seeking to apply equitable subrogation was a refinancing mortgagee who released the pr

2005Equitable Subrogation with Purchasers and New Mortgagee At trial, the Londres and Chase cited four cases in which Colorado courts applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation: Capitol National Bank v. Holmes, 43 Colo. 154 , 95 P. 314 (1908); Lawson v. Whitley, 69 Colo. 346 , 194 P. 355 (1920); Holt v. Mitchell, 96 Colo. 412 , 43 P.2d 388 (1935); and Western Federal Savings Loan v. Ben Gay, Inc., supra. The trial court distinguished Lawson, Holt, and Western Federal on the basis that in those cases the party seeking to apply equitable subrogation was a refinancing mortgagee who released the pr

12005–2005
Capitol National Bank v. Holmes green
colo · 1908
1 sentence

2005Equitable Subrogation with Purchasers and New Mortgagee At trial, the Londres and Chase cited four cases in which Colorado courts applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation: Capitol National Bank v. Holmes, 43 Colo. 154 , 95 P. 314 (1908); Lawson v. Whitley, 69 Colo. 346 , 194 P. 355 (1920); Holt v. Mitchell, 96 Colo. 412 , 43 P.2d 388 (1935); and Western Federal Savings Loan v. Ben Gay, Inc., supra. The trial court distinguished Lawson, Holt, and Western Federal on the basis that in those cases the party seeking to apply equitable subrogation was a refinancing mortgagee who released the pr

12005–2005
Larson v. Whitley green
colo · 1920
1 sentence

2005Equitable Subrogation with Purchasers and New Mortgagee At trial, the Londres and Chase cited four cases in which Colorado courts applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation: Capitol National Bank v. Holmes, 43 Colo. 154 , 95 P. 314 (1908); Lawson v. Whitley, 69 Colo. 346 , 194 P. 355 (1920); Holt v. Mitchell, 96 Colo. 412 , 43 P.2d 388 (1935); and Western Federal Savings Loan v. Ben Gay, Inc., supra. The trial court distinguished Lawson, Holt, and Western Federal on the basis that in those cases the party seeking to apply equitable subrogation was a refinancing mortgagee who released the pr

12005–2005

Where else courts name it

NY 55 (1880–2025) TX 45 (1978–2024) CA 43 (1935–2024) FL 27 (1974–2021) OH 20 (1990–2021) MI 19 (1993–2025) AZ 16 (1990–2020) IN 15 (2001–2024) GA 13 (1985–2025) AL 13 (1929–2016) WA 12 (1999–2025) NJ 12 (2000–2021) PA 11 (1920–2021) SC 11 (1993–2023) IL 11 (2001–2021) CT 9 (1986–2018) MN 9 (1977–2025) CO 8 (2005–2018) MO 7 (1984–2021) MA 6 (1999–2018) MD 6 (1890–2022) OK 6 (2000–2017) TN 5 (2008–2024) WI 5 (1997–2018) NV 5 (2012–2026) NC 5 (1994–2024) KY 4 (1960–2020) KS 4 (1919–2008) DC 3 (2011–2014) UT 3 (1993–2001) NE 3 (1943–1988) VA 3 (1997–2015) HI 2 (2001–2015) OR 2 (2004–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check