November 2019 Subrogation Newsletter

An action is usually commenced within the applicable statute of limitations by filing a summons and/or complaint. Filing the complaint, however, is only the first step. Where service of the complaint on defendant isn’t pursued with reasonable diligence or obtained within a prescribed number of days after filing, defendant may argue the statute of limitations has run and the lawsuit should be dismissed, even if it was timely filed.

The new Senate Bill 421, signed on June 20, 2019, amends several aspects of PIP subrogation under either O.R.S. § 742.536 (PIP lien) or O.R.S. § 742.538 (direct PIP subrogation). However, the only real changes the subrogation practitioner will notice in the wake of Senate Bill 421 is that PIP carriers will never again be named together with the insured on settlement checks for PI claims inclusive of PIP. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will feel more emboldened about signing off on indemnity/hold harmless releases where settlements were inclusive of PIP, and then can be expected to stubbornly resist reimbursement arguing their client has not been made whole. Beyond that, you may choose your Shakespearean reference to describe it: either (1) “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”, or (2) Much Ado About Nothing.

The ability of a landlord’s property insurer to subrogate against a tenant for property damage caused by the negligence of the tenant depends on which state the loss occurs in and the nature and language of the lease involved. Until recently, Pennsylvania had only one case speaking to this issue, but Pennsylvania has finally picked a side on this issue in the 2019 Superior Court decision of Joella v. Cole, 2019 WL 5287987 (Pa. Super. 2019).