00 claim, or $83,050. In support of its argument, the defendant refers me to Allstate Insurance Co. v. LaRandeau, 622 N.W.2d 646 (Neb. 2002). Many of the relevant facts in LaRandeau are strikingly similar to the facts of this case:
(Id.) Thus, pursuant to the Policy's standard mortgage clause, Option One Mortgage Company, as the named mortgagee, was entitled to recover under the policy even if Plaintiffs could not. Allstate paid Option One the amount of $102,763.36 to pay off its lienholder interest in Plaintiffs' residence. Option One consequently assigned to Allstate all of its rights against Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Heldreth, 2003 WL 22871679, *2 (N.D. W. Va. May 22, 2003); Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaRandeau, 622 N.W.2d 646, 649 (Neb. 2001)("'Courts have generally allowed an insurer to subrogate against an insured arsonist responsible for causing the loss.'" Id. at 650 (quoting 16 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d § 224:11 at 224-27(2000)).
As noted by Couch on Insurance 3d, broad statements of the antisubrogation rule “tend to leave out a crucial boundary of the rule: the prohibition of insurers' subrogation against their own insureds applies to claims arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered by that insurer.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaRandeau, 261 Neb. 242, 622 N.W.2d 646 (2001).Id. at 246, 622 N.W.2d at 650 (emphasis supplied).
[1,2] Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaRandeau, ante p. 242, 622 N.W.2d 646 (2001). In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
See, Control Specialists v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 228 Neb. 642, 423 N.W.2d 775 (1988); Reeder v. Reeder, 217 Neb. 120, 348 N.W.2d 832 (1984). See Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaRandeau, 261 Neb. 242, 622 N.W.2d 646 (2001).The antisubrogation rule has been extended to “implied coinsureds.”
In the context of insurance, the right to subrogation is based on two premises: (1) A wrongdoer should reimburse an insurer for payments that the insurer has made to its insured and (2) an insured should not be allowed to recover twice from the insured's insurer and the tort-feasor. Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaRandeau, 261 Neb. 242, 622 N.W.2d 646 (2001). Simply put, in the context of liability insurance, when a "liability insurer pays an insured's claim for damages caused by the . . . wrongdoing of a third party, the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the insured against that third party."
However, we have never specifically considered the question of whether, in the context of homeowner's insurance, public policy would bar enforcement of an intentional acts exclusion against an innocent coinsured whose spouse commits the intentional act that results in loss. Helen argues that this court's recent holding in Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaRandeau, 261 Neb. 242, 622 N.W.2d 646 (2001), indicates that Nebraska public policy requires an insurer to compensate an innocent coinsured in her situation. Although LaRandeau did involve a payment by an insurer to an innocent coinsured whose spouse had caused a fire loss, the issue of whether such payment was required by public policy notwithstanding an intentional acts exclusion was not presented. The insurer in LaRandeau voluntarily paid one-half of the loss to the innocent coinsured and then sought to recover that amount in a subrogation claim against the insured spouse who intentionally caused the loss.
[1,2] Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaRandeau, 261 Neb. 242, 622 N.W.2d 646 (2001). In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaRandeau, ante p. 242, 622 N.W.2d 646 (2001); Casey v. Levine, ante p. 1, 621 N.W.2d 482 (2001). On a question of law, an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below.
In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaRandeau, ante p. 242, 622 N.W.2d 646 (2001); Casey v. Levine, ante p. 1, 621 N.W.2d 482 (2001). ANALYSIS