Subrogation Limited to What Was Paid by Insurer to Insured
Post number 5270
Posted on January 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gGpPXhu2 and at https://lnkd.in/g6h3_aNR
In Erie Insurance Exchange A/S/O Bates Collision, Inc. James Myers, Anita Morgan, Lossie Auto Service, And Benedictine Sisters Of Erie, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association v. Bates Collision, Inc., No. 19 WAP 2024, No. J-23-2025, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (January 21, 2026) Erie attempted to obtain coverage for spoiliation of evidence against the property insurer.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2017, a fire broke out at Bates Collision, Inc., resulting in substantial damage to both the facility and several vehicles stored inside. Erie Insurance Exchange, as insurer for Bates and the affected vehicles, paid more than $1.6 million to its insureds under its insurance policy, which allowed Erie to pursue reimbursement for its payments.
Erie, acting as subrogee for Bates and the other insured parties, filed suit against United Services Automobile Association (USAA), asserting that USAA failed to preserve a vehicle Erie believed was crucial evidence and possibly the cause of the fire. According to the Complaint, Erie’s investigators determined that the fire originated from and was caused by a BMW.
The Complaint alleged that USAA failed to preserve the vehicle, a BMW, responsible for the fire, and as a result, Plaintiff cannot pursue its claim against the manufacturer or the owner of the vehicle or anyone involved in maintaining the vehicle as it was unable to perform an invasive laboratory examination, testing and/or other investigation necessary to precisely identify the components inside the BMW which caused the fire.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Erie’s claim was framed as one for “promissory estoppel,” but the Supreme Court questioned whether this was, in essence, a claim for spoliation of evidence — a cause of action not recognized under Pennsylvania law.
The central legal issue was whether, as subrogee of its insureds, Erie had any right of recovery against USAA for its alleged failure to preserve evidence. The Court examined the insurance policy’s subrogation clause and Pennsylvania law regarding both subrogation and spoliation of evidence.
Erie pled that it insured Bates and several cars in the shop, and that it paid out approximately 1.6 million dollars in claims. Based on payments made to insureds under the relevant insurance policy provisions and Pennsylvania law.
The Supreme Court determined that Erie, in its capacity as subrogee, did not possess a right of recovery against USAA for the alleged failure to preserve the vehicle. The Court noted that the underlying claim for promissory estoppel was tantamount to a spoliation claim, which Pennsylvania courts do not recognize as an independent cause of action.
As a result the trial court’s decision in favor of USAA was reinstated holding that Erie could not recover under the circumstances presented since USAA was not responsible for the fire. Since Erie’s suit is brought solely as the subrogee of its insureds and an insurance company’s rights as subrogee do not rise above those of its insureds.
Pursuant to the basic premise a subrogee may only recover for the loss it paid and against the party liable for the loss. Here, the loss that Erie paid out was for the fire loss damage sustained by its insureds. Thus, under subrogation principles, Erie could seek to recoup that payout from the party responsible for the fire loss. USAA did not cause the property damage for which Erie paid its insureds nor could its insured seek damages against its insurer.
ZALMA OPINION
Spoiliation of Evidence, as a tort is available in many courts across the USA but not in the state of Pennsylvania. Although Erie believed the BMW caused the fire, it could not prove the fact because USAA, insuring the auto’s in its insured’s care, allowed it to be disposed of without analysis, deprived itself and USAA of the ability to subrogate against BMW. Both insurers failed to protect the evidence and neither had a suit against BMW nor could Erie succeed against USAA for spoiliation.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
