Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company
225 So. 3d 780
Fla.2017Background
- Benjamin Hintz suffered severe head injuries in a scooter-car collision; jury awarded ~$14.9M, reduced to ~$11.18M after comparative negligence; Allstate paid $1.1M policy limit and Boozer (driver) has not paid the remainder.
- Hintz (through guardian Douglas Stalley) subsequently sued medical providers alleging malpractice that exacerbated his injuries.
- Boozer and Allstate sought to intervene in the malpractice suit asserting equitable subrogation (or to be substituted for Hintz) to recover against the medical providers for amounts attributable to their alleged malpractice.
- Trial court dismissed Boozer/Allstate’s subrogation complaints because they had not fully satisfied the judgment; the Fifth DCA reversed, holding subrogation may arise upon entry of judgment even if unsatisfied and allowing contingent claims to proceed.
- Florida Supreme Court granted review on the certified question whether a party with an unsatisfied judgment may assert equitable subrogation against a subsequent tortfeasor, and answered: no — full payment of the debt is required before asserting equitable subrogation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stalley/Hintz) | Defendant's Argument (Boozer/Allstate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an initial tortfeasor or its insurer can assert equitable subrogation against a subsequent tortfeasor when judgment has been entered but not fully paid | Subrogation unavailable until judgment fully satisfied; allowing intervention defeats plaintiff’s control and risks double recovery | Equitable subrogation should be flexible: entry of judgment (or payment in part) permits contingent subrogation to apportion liability fairly | Held no: equitable subrogation requires full discharge of the plaintiff’s claim before the initial tortfeasor/insurer may step into plaintiff’s shoes or pursue subrogation |
| Whether Stuart v. Hertz precludes third-party joinder or contingent subrogation by initial tortfeasor | Stuart preserves plaintiff’s right to control malpractice suit; initial tortfeasor cannot force malpractice into original suit | Equity and Lloyds permit subrogation after judgment; Stuart should not bar contingent claims | Court reaffirms Stuart: defendant cannot file third‑party malpractice claim in original tort; Stuart’s rationale supports requiring full satisfaction before subrogation |
| Whether partial payment by insurer (policy limits) gives rise to subrogation rights | Partial payment insufficient; obligee must be fully paid so subrogee can occupy plaintiff’s position | Partial insurer payment should permit at least contingent subrogation or intervention to protect insurer’s interests | Held partial payment does not create subrogation rights; full payment is required |
| Whether policy changes (comparative fault statute, D’Amario) alter Stuart/subrogation rules | Plaintiff: statutory changes do not overrule Stuart or permit subrogation without full payment | Defendants: evolving comparative-fault law and fairness justify permitting contingent subrogation | Held statutory developments do not abrogate Stuart or eliminate the full-payment requirement for equitable subrogation |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So.2d 703 (Fla. 1977) (initial tortfeasor may not force plaintiff to litigate malpractice in original tort action; plaintiff controls malpractice suit)
- Underwriters at Lloyds v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 382 So.2d 702 (Fla. 1980) (recognized equitable subrogation as remedy permitting initial tortfeasor to sue subsequent tortfeasor after plaintiff fully compensated)
- Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (enumerated five factors for equitable subrogation; endorsed requirement that subrogee pay entire debt and obtain release)
- Caccavella v. Silverman, 814 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (discusses subrogation when initial tortfeasor held liable for entirety of damages but does not excuse full-payment requirement)