Waiver Of Subrogation

49 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Loffland Bros. Co. v. Roberts
  386 F.2d 540· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-09 ·cited 65×
• Porphire Lanasse v. Travelers Ins. Co.
  450 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-19 ·cited 61×
• Capps v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co.
  536 F.2d 80· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-29 ·cited 52×
  An insurer's waiver of subrogation rights against a third party bars any claim for reimbursement from settlement proceeds, even if framed as an independent right.
• Allen v. Texaco, Inc.
  510 F.2d 977· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 32×
  A waiver of subrogation rights by a compensation carrier against a third party also waives any lien the carrier might assert against the employee's settlement proceeds from that third party.
• Doucet v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  783 F.2d 518· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the borrowed-employee doctrine remains a defense under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, but reversed the judgment due to an erroneous jury instruction that suggested the oil company would pay compensation if the worker was a borrowed em
• Wiley v. Offshore Painting Contractors, Inc.
  711 F.2d 602· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, finding Chevron's arguments to be without merit, frivolous, or not properly preserved for appeal.
• Fluor W., Inc. v. G & H Offshore Towing Co., Inc.
  447 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-08 ·cited 24×
• Ogea v. Loffland Bros. Co.
  622 F.2d 186· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Loffland's failure to obtain required insurance constituted a breach of contract, relieving Phillips of liability for the employee's injuries up to the policy limits, but that attorney's fees were not recoverable as they were not provided for by statute or con
• Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Ga. Sprinkler Co., Inc.
  713 F.2d 1500· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 18×
  The court should have remanded the case to determine the intent of the indemnity provisions, as the majority's reliance on Brennan's was misplaced.
• Complaint of Twenty Grand Offshore, Inc. v. W. India Carriers, Inc.
  492 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-12 ·cited 18×
  Agreements allocating responsibility for obtaining insurance, naming the tower as an additional assured, are valid and do not violate the policy against exculpation for negligence.
• United States Fire Ins. Co. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc.
  134 So. 3d 477· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-09-18 ·cited 15×
  USFI, as subrogee of M.A. Federal's insurance rights, sued ADT for negligence after ADT's security system failed to detect a burglary when the wireless backup ceased functioning during the FCC's transition from analog to digital signals. The court reversed the trial court's judgm
• Alday v. Patterson Truck Line, Inc.
  750 F.2d 375· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that factual issues precluded summary judgment on the borrowed employee issue, and the denial of the motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
• Eres v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co.
  998 F.3d 1273· 11th Cir.· 2021-06-01 ·cited 13×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the insurer did not act in bad faith by offering a release that included a waiver of subrogation, as it was not clearly established at the time that such a clause was equivalent to a hold-harmless or indemnity provision, and the insurer offered to s
• Jordon J. Rasinski v. McCoy
  227 So. 3d 201· Fla. 5th DCA· 2017-08-04 ·cited 12×
  Rasinski appeals a $2.13 million judgment in a negligence case, challenging the jury's award for lost earning capacity and requesting additional collateral source set-offs. The appellate court reverses the lost earning capacity award for insufficient evidence and reverses the den
• The DOW Chem. Co. v. The M/V Roberta Tabor
  815 F.2d 1037· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Dow failed to prove loss of use damages with reasonable certainty and that Dow's suit against Chotin for hull damage breached charter agreements, but Dow's suit for loss of use did not. The court reversed the award of all attorneys' fees to Chotin, remanding f
• Marathon OIL Co. v. Mid-Continent Underwriters
  786 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 12×
  When underwriters issue a policy waiving "all subrogation" against an additional assured, they cannot recoup sums paid to settle a risk covered by the policy, even if the recoupment is based on the additional assured's exposure for risks not covered by the policy.
• Olen Lirette v. Popich Bros. Water Transp., Inc.
  699 F.2d 725· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Popich's charter obligated it to indemnify Candies for Exxon's losses, as the losses arose from the operation of the vessel under the charter.
• Peraza v. Robles
  983 So. 2d 1189· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-04-09 ·cited 11×
  In this insurance settlement dispute, the court reversed a trial court's enforcement of a settlement agreement where an insurance company's response to a settlement demand included additional conditions not found in the original offer. The court held that the insurance company's
• The DOW Chem. Co. v. Ashland OIL, Inc.
  579 F.2d 902· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 11×
  Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the cargo loss was covered by traditional marine cargo insurance and the cause of the loss, which are necessary to allocate liability under the contract.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. United States
  543 F.2d 71· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the terms 'associated' and 'affiliated' in an insurance policy's subrogation waiver clause require an intimate business relationship with integrated financial and managerial control, and do not encompass entities with common ownership and limited sharing of fa
• Transcon. GAS Pipe Line Corp. v. Transp. Ins. Co.
  953 F.2d 985· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act applies only if the agreement pertains to a well, and the services performed must be related to exploration, development, production, or transportation originating from that well.
• Voisin v. O.D.E.C.O. Drilling Co.
  744 F.2d 1174· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 8×
  An agreement by a stevedore to name a vessel owner as an additional insured on its liability insurance policies is not void under section 905(b) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LHWCA).
• Stewart v. Cran-Vela Rental Co., Inc.
  510 F.2d 982· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 8×
  A third party can recover damages from an employer for breach of contract when the employer fails to obtain a waiver of subrogation from its workers' compensation insurer, and the third party subsequently pays the insurer on the subrogation claim.
• Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. Ltd. & Kajima Int'l, Inc. v. Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau
  786 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by disallowing the defendants' affirmative defense of waiver of subrogation. The court further held that the waiver of subrogation provision barred the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants.
• Dillingham TUG & Barge Corp. v. Collier Carbon & Chem. Corp.
  707 F.2d 1086· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-10 ·cited 7×
  An insurance provision in a towage contract requiring the owner to insure the vessel for the benefit of the tower is generally enforceable and not against public policy, and the owner cannot recover from the tower for losses paid by the insurer.
• Hanks v. Transcon. GAS Pipe Line Corp.
  953 F.2d 996· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 6×
  Waiver of subrogation provisions in a contract for the construction of an interstate gas transmission pipeline are not prohibited by the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act because the contract does not pertain to a well.
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & United States Fire Ins. Co. v. E.L. Nezelek, Inc.
  480 So. 2d 1333· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-11-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the construction contract shifted responsibility for fire damage to the owner's insurers, preventing a subrogation action by the insurers against the contractor.
• Delfino R. Olivas v. United States
  506 F.2d 1158· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, and that the government was entitled to a setoff for workmen's compensation payments because it paid the insurance premiums, but Aetna waived its statutory lien.
• Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.
  851 F.2d 98· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 5×
  The lack of a subrogation right does not preclude an insurer from pursuing a direct action for contribution against another insurer allegedly liable for the same loss.
• Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Burk Kessinger, Jr.
  874 So. 2d 645· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-04-21 ·cited 4×
  Gulfstream Park Racing Association sought to recover from horse trainer Kessinger under a contractual indemnity clause for an injury claim it paid through its insurer. The trial court granted a directed verdict for Kessinger based on findings that the insurer had waived its subro
• PPG Indus., Inc. v. Ashland OIL Company-Thomas Petroleum Transit Div.
  592 F.2d 138· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on the carrier to demonstrate due diligence after an excepted peril caused damage, and that the shipper failed to prove negligence.
• The DOW Chem. Co. v. M/V Charles F. Detmar, JR.
  545 F.2d 1091· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-06 ·cited 4×
  A towage contract's exculpatory clauses attempting to relieve the towing company of liability for its own negligence are void as against public policy, and ambiguous indemnity language is insufficient to overcome this rule in a towage contract.
• In re Port Everglades Towing Co., Ltd. v. Port Everglades Towing Co., Ltd.
  454 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the general waiver of subrogation in the insurance policy was not avoided by the insured's breach of warranty, entitling the towing company to summary judgment.
• In re the Complaint of The Admiral Towing & Barge Co. v. Seatrain Int'l, S.A.
  767 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a bareboat charter validly insulated the owner from liability for the tug's unseaworthiness and that subrogation claims by insurers are barred if the insureds themselves could not assert those claims.
• Donnie A. LeBLANC v. Petco, Inc.
  647 F.2d 617· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer was entitled to full reimbursement of its compensation lien and that the trial court erred in reducing the lien based on a waiver of subrogation against one joint obligor or for attorney's fees.
• Basf Wyandotte Corp. v. The TUG Leander, JR.
  590 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the waiver of subrogation provision in the towage contract was legally enforceable, and the subcontractor could benefit from this provision.
• Willamette-Western Corp. v. Columbia Pac. Towing Co.
  466 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a charterer is not liable for damages paid by the vessel's insurers via loan receipts when the insurance policy contains a waiver of subrogation clause benefiting charterers.
• The Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Superior Guar. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-02-26
  An insurer cannot bring a subrogation claim if its insured waived subrogation rights against the party whose insurer is being sued, especially when the contract intended parties to look to their own insurance.
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. Non-Arbitration Case Parsons Ec Constructors, Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2004-08-30
  The court granted summary judgment on the indemnification claim, finding it barred by Delaware's public policy against indemnifying a party for its own negligence and by the doctrine of collateral estoppel due to the plaintiff's failure to implead the defendant in the underlying
• IN & FOR Kent Cnty. Craig A. Bounds & Leslie Bounds
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2004-01-29
  The court denied the defendant's motions for a new trial or, in the alternative, for amendment or alteration of the judgment, and for remittitur. The court found no merit in the defendant's arguments that the jury instruction on workers' compensation was confusing, that evidence
• LaMarr Myers and Nancy Myers v. ANR Pipeline Co.
  959 F.2d 1443· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-27
  The court held that E-CON contractually agreed to indemnify ANR for attorneys fees and costs incurred in defending personal injury suits, even those arising from ANR's own negligence, and affirmed the award, modifying only the amount.
• Dant & Russell, Inc. v. Dillingham TUG & Barge Corp.
  895 F.2d 507· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-16
  The court should have considered Fireman's Fund's claim that its waiver of subrogation was procured by fraud.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Friedman
  540 So. 2d 160· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-03-15
  USF & G, subrogee of a shopping center owner, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its subrogation action against an employee of a corporate tenant for fire damage. The court reversed, holding that a lease provision waiving subrogation claims against the corporate tenant does n
• Jackson v. Land & Offshore Servs., Inc.
  855 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-20
  An employee who settles a third-party claim without the employer's consent forfeits all future compensation benefits under the LHWCA, regardless of the settlement amount or employer's waiver of subrogation rights.
• Horizon Petroleum Co. v. Barges Dixie 162
  753 F.2d 382· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-20
  The court held that the plaintiffs breached their contracts by failing to secure proper insurance, and the contracts clearly allocated all risks of loss to the plaintiffs.
• State of La. v. La. Towing Co.
  692 F.2d 18· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-26
  The court held that the insurance policy's special condition did not extend coverage to Avondale's vessel when Avondale's vessel was solely at fault for the allision, as the policy only covered liability arising from the fault of the insured vessels listed in the schedule.
• Matthews v. Fed. Compress & Warehouse Co.
  632 F.2d 1199· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-15
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict for the lessor based on the indemnity clause, as the clause's application to claims between the parties was not established by Mississippi law.
• Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Evelio Cruz
  384 So. 2d 40· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-05-20
  Fidelity & Casualty appealed a summary judgment in an insurance dispute involving uninsured motorist coverage and personal injury protection benefits arising from an automobile accident. The court affirmed the lower court's determination that the plaintiffs were entitled to $11,0
• United States v. Luehr
  208 F.2d 138· 9th Cir.· 1953-11-09
  The court affirmed the award to the injured employee and the dismissal of the stevedoring company, finding the award was not excessive and the government's claims lacked merit.