Glynn vs Scottish Union & National Insurance
in Baer.Intro
I don't understand how subrogation comes into this case.
The at-fault driver's insurance (let's call them XYZ insurance) paid for Glynn's medical bills.
If Glynn's insurer wants subrogation against them, would they somehow take it out of the payments XYZ made to Glynn? But don't Glynn, or the hospital, already have the money? Or are they trying to redirect a stream of payments between XYZ and Glynn towards Scottish Union instead?
I am picturing Scottish Union sending Glynn a check and simultaneously a bill for the subrogation.
Comments
It can be confusing when 3rd-parties are involved. Here's what should have happened:
That's it. The at-fault insurer pays and Glynn receives fair compensation.
But Glynn got greedy - he wanted to make a profit from the accident by receiving additional reimbursement from his own insurer. Glynn's insurer responded by saying, "Ok, if we have to pay Glynn then we should be able to subrogate against XYZ since they are the responsible party."
So if Glynn's insurer pays Glynn but wants to subrogate against XYZ then I think what you're asking is: where does XYZ get the money? They have already paid Glynn (or the hospital) so does Glynn have to give it back to XYZ so XYZ can give it to Glynn's insurer? Or does XYZ end up paying twice, once to Glynn and once to Glynn's insurer? It all seems very complicated.
Because the appeal was successful, all of these complications were eliminated. Glynn got paid by XYZ and Glynn's insurer paid nothing. This would be equivalent however to Glynn's insurer paying Glynn and then subrogating against XYZ. That didn't actually happen because Glynn was already paid by XYZ but that's what would have happened if Glynn's insurer had made the original payment to Glynn. That's because the appeal judge ruled this insurance contract to be a contract of indemnity and the principle of subrogation applies.
Hi,
I didn't get the study kit. I want to confirm that Glynn is the defendant here. Thanks!
This case is no longer on the syllabus so I wouldn't bother
That is not accurate, it is still on the syllabus (although it is misspelled as Glenn v. Scottish).
Since Glynn is the one suing his insurer who refused to pay for his medical bills, I believe that would make him the plaintiff and not the defendant.
Thanks AnLaPe!
Whoops yeah it's still on the syllabus. I was looking at landmark cases. Thanks for the catch