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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
