The doctrine of subrogation in contracts of insurance operated entirely by virtue of an implied term of the contract of insurance: ‘I take it to be clear beyond all argument that an assured under a policy insuring him against loss of or damage to a chattel, on being indemnified by his insurers for a loss he sustained, does not thereby lose his right of action against the wrongdoer who caused the loss. Under the doctrine of subrogation he must bring an action against the wrongdoer if he is called upon by his insurer to do so and is indemnified against the costs; but it is his own cause of action, not that of his insurer, that he sues on; as against the wrongdoer the insurer has no cause of action of his own.’
Judges:
Lord Diplock
Citations:
[1978] AC 16
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bee v Jenson ComC 21-Dec-2006
The defendant objected to paying the plaintiff the costs of a replacement hire car after the accident for which he was liable. He said that the plaintiff was in any event insured to recover that cost, and the insurance company were subrogated to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.247996
