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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Kindness in Sentencing is Often Abused and Probation Becomes Jail
Posted on September 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4848
See the full video at and at at https://lnkd.in/gGJpiN_R and at https://lnkd.in/gb56mYsP
In State Of North Carolina v. Tia Allen, No. COA24-1010, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (September 16, 2026) Tia M. Allen pleaded guilty on 18 April 2022 to several offenses under a plea agreement.
On 6 February 2024, her probation officer alleged that Allen had paid nothing, failed to report, and incurred new criminal charges.
The court found all alleged violations, extended probation by 24 months, imposed five months’ confinement as special probation, required reporting after release, and ordered electronic house arrest.
LAW
A probation violation need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; competent evidence must reasonably satisfy the trial judge that the defendant willfully violated a valid probation condition.
An in-court admission of a willful violation eliminates the need for ...
Kindness in Sentencing is Often Abused and Probation Becomes Jail
Posted on September 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4848
See the full video at and at at https://lnkd.in/gGJpiN_R and at https://lnkd.in/gb56mYsP
In State Of North Carolina v. Tia Allen, No. COA24-1010, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (September 16, 2026) Tia M. Allen pleaded guilty on 18 April 2022 to several offenses under a plea agreement.
On 6 February 2024, her probation officer alleged that Allen had paid nothing, failed to report, and incurred new criminal charges.
The court found all alleged violations, extended probation by 24 months, imposed five months’ confinement as special probation, required reporting after release, and ordered electronic house arrest.
LAW
A probation violation need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; competent evidence must reasonably satisfy the trial judge that the defendant willfully violated a valid probation condition.
An in-court admission of a willful violation eliminates the need for...
Kindness in Sentencing is Often Abused and Probation Becomes Jail
Posted on September 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4848
See the full video at and at
In State Of North Carolina v. Tia Allen, No. COA24-1010, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (September 16, 2026) Tia M. Allen pleaded guilty on 18 April 2022 to several offenses under a plea agreement. The trial court consolidated the convictions, imposed an 11-to-23-month sentence,
On 6 February 2024, her probation officer alleged that Allen had paid nothing, failed to report, and incurred new criminal charges. At the 26 March 2024 hearing, counsel admitted Allen’s nonpayment but did not admit commission of the new offenses; the court did not inquire into the failure-to-report allegation.
Defendant did not deny this probation violation. Instead, when the trial court asked whether Defendant wanted to admit any of the alleged probation violations, Defendant admitted her ...
