This week, join us as we revisit our episode on the Made Whole Doctrine for a refresher!

Original Air Date: May 28, 2021.

The Made Whole Doctrine protects an insured’s right to recovery before recovery is collected by its insurer.   But what if the tortfeasor does not have enough insurance to cover the loss? Is the insured entitled to recovery for pain and suffering? And the ultimate question, when is the insured considered fully compensated for the loss?

Being “made whole” varies even in those states that do apply the Made Whole Doctrine. Listen as Steve and Rebecca lead you through several states’ application of the doctrine, from those that require a legal determination that the insured has been made whole before any subrogation recovery, to those that parse out the doctrine based on damage types, to those that reject it entirely.   

Workers Compensation is a very state specific thing, and recently, we have heard a lot of excited talk about work comp subrogation in Nevada.  That’s because the Nevada Supreme Court changed the long-standing common law rules establishing the system for calculating the amount an insurer could recover on a workers compensation claim in a decision handed down in 2024. 

Listen in as Rebecca and Steve walk through the rules as they developed in the common law over 38 years, then suddenly changed in 2024, and the legislature’s response in 2025, to answer the question: where do Nevada work comp subrogation claims now?

 This week, join us as we revisit our episode on the Anti-Subrogation Rule for a refresher!

Original Air Date: June 11, 2021.

The idea that an insurance company cannot subrogate against its own insureds seems like common sense, but is this a hard-and-fast rule?  What happens when an insurance company tries to seek reimbursement for medical expenses paid to their insured when they also insure the tortfeasor who caused those injuries? What if that insured seeks her own recovery against the tortfeasor for the same medical expenses? What if an insured’s intentional act was the cause of serious injuries or death? Does their insurance company have a right to subrogate to recover those amounts from their insured?

In this installment in our series, follow Rebecca and Steve as they navigate the anti-subrogation rule and explain why insurance carriers cannot typically subrogate against their own insureds, and when such actions may be permitted. 

Sometimes, the best evidence to support your subrogation case are records that were created by another company.  Will a court permit these records to be introduced, or are they destined to be barred by the hearsay rule?  Thankfully, the Business Records Doctrine allows a company to enter records previously created by an outside entity into  evidence to prove their case.

On this week’s episode, Rebecca and Steve discuss what is required to properly introduce these records and how much they can influence a case. Whether invoices, emails or reports from others, find out how these records can become an influential part of a case, and how to determine if your records have the requisite indicia of trustworthiness.

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Hearsay for a refresher!

Original Air Date: July 23, 2021.

Rumor has it…there are times when the evidence you are seeking to introduce in court does not come from a witness there in court, but by someone who heard something that someone else said. If you are seeking to introduce this evidence to prove the truth of what was heard, then what you have is hearsay.  Contrary to what you may have heard, hearsay isn’t always inadmissible, and sometimes, hearsay isn’t even (technically) hearsay.  As usual, it depends – on whether the speaker is available, when and why they were speaking, and what motivated that statement.

On this week’s installment, Rebecca and Steve navigate the hearsay rule, its exceptions, and the exceptions to those exceptions to provide insight on precisely when out of court statements can be deemed admissible and when a court should refuse to play telephone.

The MCS-90 endorsement is a federally mandated provision that essentially transforms an insurance policy into a tool to protect the public. While often misunderstood, this endorsement isn’t about shielding the policy holder, but rather ensuring victims are compensated, even when coverage technically doesn’t apply.  If the endorsement requires an insurer to pay for damages that wouldn’t have been covered, however, they are not totally without options.  Instead, they are placed in the unusual position of having a claim against their own insured. 

On this week’s episode, Rebecca and Steve explore the interesting avenues for recovery when an MCS-90 endorsement  results in payment outside of a policy, and how this endorsement allows for recovery from your insured. 

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on MCS-90 for a refresher!

Original Air Date: July 30, 2019.

Big trucks require big coverage – at least according to the Motor Carrier Act of 1980.  To make sure that coverage protects the public in accidents involving these big trucks, the Act requires that coverage to include an MCS-90 endorsement.  What is the MCS-90 endorsement, and what does it mean for a subrogation case involving a tractor-trailer or other large or hazardous vehicle?  Join Rebecca and Steve as they discuss the MCS-90 endorsement, and how knowing what it says can help you in your negotiations of trucking cases.

You can find more information on the Financial Responsibility Requirements for large or hazardous vehicles on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s website, and the Form MCS-90 Endorsement here.

Subrogation damages, like most civil lawsuits, are a matter of proof.  You need evidence to prove that you and your insured suffered the losses you are claiming.  So what happens when those losses are not for damaged property or medical bills, but for lost profits?  Can you ask the court to look into the future to pay for sales your insured would have made, but for the incident at issue? 

On this week’s episode, Rebecca and Steve explore real scenarios to guide listeners through the legal standards that shape these complex claims and break down the core elements behind successful lost profit recovery cases.  Whether the insured business is a long-term established entity, or a brand new storefront, you may be able to successfully recover lost profits, as long as you have receipts. 

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Third Party: Government Entities as a refresher!

Original Air Date: May14, 2021

Federal and State Governments are powerful entities. But are they so powerful that they can never be sued for damages?

In this installment in our series on third party liability, join Rebecca and Steve as they explain why sovereign immunity can be a liability for your case if your third party is a government entity.   The special forums for these claims, the special rules, time limits, and notice requirements that apply, and whether the entity can be sued for subrogation at all depend on which state or political subdivision is at fault.  So buckle up and take notes for your next cross country claim.

Most automobile subrogation cases are the result of negligence, but when the tortfeasor’s driving was reckless or intentional, we sometimes call it Road Rage.  Though a road rage incident may seem like an easy case, it often  proves to be quite complex, calling into question whether the opposing  insurance carrier can deny coverage, potential assumption of risk, or even if an employer could be held responsible for an employee’s rageful driving.

In this week’s episode, Rebecca and Steve explore what really happens when road rage turns into a legal battle and break down real legal concepts with insight into how the law handles anger on the asphalt.