[1] It is a legal doctrine whereby one person is entitled to enforce the subsisting or revived rights of another for their own benefit.
English courts have now accepted that the concept of unjust enrichment has a role to play in subrogation.
[5] In contrast, this approach has been stridently rejected by the High Court of Australia, where the doctrinal basis of subrogation is said to lie in the prevention of unconscionable results: for example, the discharge of a debtor or one party obtaining double recovery.
[8] This situation might arise if, for example, an insured claimed in full under the policy, but then started proceedings against the third party tortfeasor, and recovered substantial damages.
All other sources of recovery, indemnity payments or insurance coverage must be exhausted before any payments will be made under any of our policies.While these supplemental travel insurance policies may be less expensive in the short run, they can have devastating consequences if a serious and costly health crisis occurs while travelling.
If the member purchases travel insurance from their own extended health-care provider, a claim would not have affected the lifetime maximum.
[10] A surety who pays off the debts of another party may be entitled to be subrogated to the creditor's former claims and remedies against the debtor to recover the sum paid.
If the equity is established, the court may effect the subrogation remedy by way of equitable lien, charge, or a constructive trust with a liability to account.
[17] In the United States, in River Junction v Maryland Casualty Co. (1943),[18] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the assignee (the bank), should properly be subrogated to the rights of the owner, and not the surety.