Following closely on the heels of an unfavorable decision, state legislators in Albany wasted no time embarking on a rescue mission to save New York’s anti-subrogation statute from ERISA preemption. McKinney’s G.O.L. §§ 5-101 and 5-335. The statute, originally enacted in 2009, was purportedly an attempt to protect parties to settlements of tort claims from…
One of the more common misconceptions one hears in the realm of health and accident subrogation is that, when it comes to motor vehicle accidents, “there is no subrogation in Michigan.” No one can deny that the Michigan No-Fault Act presents an abundance of obstacles for a carrier looking to recover medical and wage loss…
Drastic Re-Write of Comp Law Provides New Subrogation Options In the 1970s, the Oklahoma Sooners’ football team successfully began implementing a new offensive system known as the “option offense.” Sooner Coach Barry Switzer has been credited by many for having perfected the use of the wishbone offense, a staple of option offenses. Forty years later,…
It is said that releases and settlement agreements “use a hundred words when ten would do” and there is a good reason for that. Those drafting the release want to include as much as possible within the future protections, claims released, and indemnity provided by the document. Conversely, those signing the release want to limit…
Subrogation of Occupational Disease Claims Eliminated “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” – Al Pacino, Godfather III. In 2005, Missouri amended its statutes and divorced the compensability of occupational disease claims from its statutory workers’ compensation definitions of “accident” and “injury.” A few years later, in the case of…
The Common Fund Doctrine is an exception to the “American Rule,” which obligates each party in a lawsuit to pay its own attorneys’ fees. This Doctrine is applicable in situations where one party’s success in litigation creates a “common fund” which benefits a third party. The third party is obligated to pay a pro rata…
A 2012 Texas Federal Court decision has brought into focus the ability of an ERISA Plan to file a state subrogation tort action. While dealing specifically with a Contribution of Benefits issue, the Federal Court decision in Central States v. Health Special Risk, Inc., 2013 WL 2656159 (N.D. Tex. 2013) has given ammunition to anti-subrogation…
We have long known that Democrats, financially fueled by the trial lawyers’ lobby, are no fans of subrogation. Surprisingly, even Republicans continue to battle the subrogation bogeyman, an indication that subrogation education and lobbying of our legislators should be a priority in our industry. The most recent example is in Texas, where Republican legislators sponsored,…
Court Recognizes Importance of Subrogation In Reducing Premiums: Calingo v. Meridian Resource Co., LLC, 2013 WL 1250448 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The U.S. government sponsors more than 350 different health Plans covering more than nine million federal employees, retirees, and beneficiaries through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Act of 1959 (FEHBA). 5 U.S.C. §§ 8901-8914. These health Plans…
U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Holds Equity Does Not Trump Plan Language On April 16, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 2013 WL 1567371 (2013), a case in which the future of ERISA health insurance subrogation hung in the balance. Subrogation won, trial lawyers lost. In a rare…