Employers of Wausau v. Purex Corp.

7 Citing cases

  1. Arlet v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    237 A.3d 615 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    It is well-settled that an insurer cannot subrogate against its own insured. Keystone Paper Converters, Inc. v. Neemar, Inc. , 562 F. Supp. 1046, 1048 (E.D. Pa. 1983) ("there exists a large body of law to the effect that an insurer may not subrogate against its own insured."); Employers of Wausau v. Purex Corp. , 476 F. Supp. 140, 142 (E.D. Pa. 1979). "By definition, subrogation can arise only with respect to the rights of an insured against third persons to whom the insurer owes no duty." Remy v. Michael D's Carpet Outlets , 391 Pa.Super. 436, 571 A.2d 446, 447 (1990).

  2. Arlet v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    270 A.3d 434 (Pa. 2022)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Notwithstanding its determination that Claimant's exclusive remedy lay with the WCA, the court affirmed the WCAB on the alternative grounds that "it is well settled that an insurer cannot subrogate against its own insured." Id. (citing Keystone Paper Converters, Inc. v. Neemar, Inc. , 562 F. Supp. 1046, 1048 (E.D. Pa. 1983) ; Employers of Wausau v. Purex Corp. , 476 F. Supp. 140, 142 (E.D. Pa. 1979) ; and Remy v. Michael D's Carpet Outlets , 391 Pa.Super. 436, 571 A.2d 446, 447 (1990) ). ISSUE ON APPEAL

  3. League v. Acadia Ins. Co.

    537 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 6, 2025)

    See Keystone Paper Converters, Inc. v. Neemar, Inc., 562 F.Supp. 1046 (E.D. Pa. 1983); Employers of Wausau v. Purex Corp., 476 F.Supp. 140 (E.D. Pa. 1979); Remy v. Michael D's Carpet Outlets, 571 A.2d 446 (Pa. Super. 1990). Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the instant action warranted the adoption of a "no-coverage exception" which overrides the general equitable rule precluding an insurer from pursuing subrogation against its insured in matters such as this, where the insurer seeks subrogation for amounts paid to the insured for which the insurer did not bear the risk of coverage on the insured.

  4. Fidelity Guar. Ins. v. American Bldgs. Co.

    14 F. Supp. 2d 704 (M.D. Pa. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    It is well settled that an insurer may not assert a subrogation claim against one of its insureds. See Employers of Wausau v. Purex Corp., 476 F. Supp. 140, 142-43 (E.D.Pa. 1979) ("`No right of subrogation can arise in favor of the insurer against its own insured, since by definition subrogation arises only with respect to rights of the insured against third persons to whom the insurer owes no duty.'") (quoting 16 Couch on Insurance 2d § 61:133 (1966 1978 Supp.)); Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. v. Brodsky, 950 S.W.2d 297, 303 (Mo.Ct.App. 1997) ("No right of subrogation can arise in favor of an insurer against its own insured, since, by definition, subrogation arises with respect to rights of the insured against third persons to whom the insurer owes no duty."); Jones Lang Wootton USA v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene MacRae, 243 A.D.2d 168, 674 N.Y.S.2d 280, ___ (1998) ("It is settled that a carrier may not utilize subrogation to maintain an action against its own insured with respect to a loss covered by the policy of insurance. To condone such a course would permit the carrier to recover from its own insured for the very loss against which the insurance policy provid

  5. Keystone Paper Converters, Inc. v. Neemar, Inc.

    562 F. Supp. 1046 (E.D. Pa. 1983)   Cited 10 times
    Granting summary judgment despite the potential "windfall" to the third party defendants

    Although there are no Pennsylvania state appellate decisions that have dealt, with this issue, there exists a large body of law to the effect that an insurer may not subrogate against its insured.See Employers of Wausau v. Purex Corp., 476 F. Supp. 140 (E.D.Pa. 1979); Turner Const. Co. v. John B. Kelly Co., 442 F. Supp. 551 (E.D.Pa. 1976) and cases cited therein. In general, the rationale for this rule of law is that "by definition subrogation arises only with respect to the rights of the insured against third parties to whom the insurer owes no duty."

  6. Royal Exchange Assurance of America, Inc. v. Adams

    510 F. Supp. 581 (W.D. Wash. 1981)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that insurer could not assert subrogation claims against an insured where the insured was covered under a separate liability policy

    Treating Royal Exchange and Marine Indemnity as one, the issue remaining is whether an insurer which had paid an insured shipper on a cargo damage policy may subrogate against a carrier whose stevedoring operations it insures under an unrelated liability policy, for damage allegedly caused to the cargo in the carrier's capacity as carrier. Clearly there can be no recovery for damage caused by insured activities such as APL's stevedoring operations, and the Port of Tacoma's terminal operations. Employers of Wausau v. Purex Corp., 476 F. Supp. 140, 143 (E.D.Pa. 1979) ("If Employers recovered in this subrogation action against Purex, it would be reimbursed for the loss which Purex paid it premiums to cover.") Plaintiff relies on two cases to support subrogation, Turner Construction Co. v. John B. Kelly Co., 442 F. Supp. 551 (E.D.Pa. 1976) and Public Service Company of Oklahoma v. Black Veatch, 328 F. Supp. 14 (N.D.Okla.

  7. Remy v. Michael D's Carpet Outlets

    391 Pa. Super. 436 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the tenant was not an implied co-insured of the landlord, and permitting landlord's insurer to bring a subrogation action against tenant

    It follows and, indeed, is now well established that an insurer cannot recover by means of subrogation against its own insured. Keystone Paper Converters,Inc. v. Neemar, Inc., supra; Employers of Wausau v. Purex Corp., 476 F. Supp. 140 (E.D.Pa. 1979); Turner Const. Co. v. John B.Kelly Co., 442 F. Supp. 551 (E.D.Pa. 1976). Michael D's contends, therefore, that Kimco's action against it, which in reality is a claim by Kimco's insurer to enforce subrogation rights, cannot be maintained because Michael D's is an implied co-insured with Kimco under Kimco's policy of fire insurance.