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 ]
Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified subrogation procedures under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). [1]
There are many cases where B enjoys rights which, in equity, are enforceable against the legal owner, A. without A being a trustee, e.g. an equitable right to redeem a mortgage, equitable easements, restrictive covenants, the right to rectification, an insurer's right by subrogation to receive damages subsequently recovered by the assured: Lord ...
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 trustee must also keep adequate records of the administration of the trust generally. [66] All trust property must stay separate from the trustee's own personal property and must not be "commingled." [67] A trustee can hold certain securities, usually publicly traded ones, in a "street name" or nominee registration for ease of management. [68]
Tracing also shows any proceeds of sale or property purchased using trust property in the hands of the trustee or third parties. Owners can recover their property and perhaps also any profits made from it, or in situations where the property cannot be recovered (as it has been mixed in with other property, or cannot be found), substitute ...
The board will likely appoint a replacement, who would serve until the end of 2025.
As the law has extended beyond such claims, unjust enrichment scholars have debated the scope of proprietary relief: that is, whether the court should recognise that (or declare that) the claimant has a beneficial or security interest in property held by the defendant (or a third party, as in the case of subrogation to extinguished rights).