Ads
related to: waiver of subrogation vs rights
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Subrogation is the assumption by a third party (such as a second creditor or an insurance company) of another party's legal right to collect debts or damages. [1] It is a legal doctrine whereby one person is entitled to enforce the subsisting or revived rights of another for their own benefit. [ 2 ]
The original policy between Fraser River and its insurer contained a subrogation clause which waived the insurer's right of subrogation against any third parties. Fraser River and its insurer entered an agreement which waived the original subrogation waiver, intending to allow the insurance company and Fraser River to sue Can-Dive.
Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment, surrender or abandonment of some known right or privilege. Forfeiture is the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform, etc. Per U.S. v. Olano, if a defendant has waived a
Marshalling is an equitable doctrine applied in the context of lending. It was described by Lord Hoffmann as: [A] principle for doing equity between two or more creditors, each of whom are owed debts by the same debtor, but one of whom can enforce his claim against more than one security or fund and the other can resort to only one.
A waiver is the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of some known right or privilege. Regulatory agencies of state departments or the federal government may issue waivers to exempt companies from certain regulations. For example, a United States law restricted the size of banks, but when banks exceeded these sizes, they obtained waivers. [1]
Why only "common law"? Subrogation exists also in civil law traditions. See for example articles 1651-1659 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which deal with subrogation in the Quebec (civil) law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:67.71.70.67 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 December 2006. Put it in.
Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter [1993] AC 713 was a judicial decision of House of Lords relating to the right of subrogation (and in particular, the quantification of that right) where an insurer pays with respect to an insured risk and the assured later recovers damages from a third party with respect to that same loss.
The first reported judicial decision involving an effort of a health insurer to seek subrogation on a personal injury claim is the 1982 decision in Frost v. Porter Leasing Corp., 436 N.E.2d 387 (Mass. 1982) in which subrogation was denied. “ERISA reimbursement” claims began arising in the late 1980s and have been resisted by some federal ...