Lawrence A. Hubb v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
85 A.3d 836
D.C.2014Background
- On June 5, 2009 Lawrence Hubb's car was rear-ended; State Farm had Hubb's PIP policy and Erie insured the tortfeasor Gregg Mutter.
- Hubb submitted a PIP claim to State Farm; State Farm paid $25,519.33 under a policy clause requiring reimbursement if the insured recovers from another party.
- Hubb later settled his negligence claim against Mutter/Erie for $60,000.
- State Farm sued Hubb in D.C. Superior Court seeking reimbursement of its PIP payment under the policy's payback/subrogation clause.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm for $25,519.33; Hubb appealed arguing the No-Fault Act limits subrogation to other insurers.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the No-Fault Act permits insurer recovery from an insured who agreed to a subrogation/payback clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the D.C. No‑Fault Act restricts insurer reimbursement/subrogation to other insurers only | Hubb: §31‑2411(d) authorizes reimbursement only from another insurer; expressio unius excludes recovery from the insured | State Farm: statute and §31‑2406(f)(5) authorize subrogation/reimbursement for coverages insurers are required to provide, including PIP; policy payback is enforceable | Court: Held for State Farm; the Act does not bar reimbursement from the insured who agreed to a subrogation/payback clause |
| Whether §31‑2406(f)(5)'s phrase "coverage required by this section" applies to PIP | Hubb: that phrase refers only to uninsured motorist coverage in subsection (f) | State Farm: "section" refers to entire §31‑2406, which requires insurers to offer PIP (§31‑2406(a)(1)(D)), so (f)(5) covers PIP reimbursements | Court: Held "section" covers all mandatory coverages insurers must provide under §31‑2406, including PIP |
| Whether expressio unius est exclusio alterius bars recovery from insured | Hubb: explicit mention of other insurers in §31‑2411(d) implies exclusion of insured recovery | State Farm: maxim is just an interpretive aid and cannot override clear statutory meaning or common‑law subrogation and freedom to contract | Court: Rejected Hubb's reliance on the maxim; statutory text and purpose permit recovery from insured who contractually agreed |
| Whether enforcing payback clause conflicts with No‑Fault Act/public policy (double recovery concern) | Hubb: allowing State Farm to reclaim PIP may unfairly diminish insured's recovery; settlements are compromises | State Farm: preventing payback would create windfalls and conflict with double‑recovery rules; insured remains fully compensated after reimbursement | Court: Enforcing the clause is consistent with Act’s anti‑double‑recovery policy and freedom to contract; insured here remains compensated |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgins v. Allied Am. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 237 A.2d 471 (D.C. 1968) (recognizing common‑law insurer subrogation/payback rights)
- Murrell v. Criterion Ins. Co., 551 A.2d 95 (D.C. 1988) (upholding contractual payback clause)
- Fisher v. Government Emps. Ins. Co., 762 A.2d 35 (D.C. 2000) (No‑Fault Act bars double recovery)
- Porter v. United States, 769 A.2d 143 (D.C. 2001) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (No‑Fault Act’s "adequate protection" means full recovery of out‑of‑pocket expenses)