[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff is subrogated to the rights of the injured party (the “subrogee”);
2. The subrogee made the payment to protect his or her own interest,
3. The subrogee did not act as a volunteer,
4. The subrogee was not primarily liable for the debt,
5. The subrogee paid off the entire debt,
6. Subrogation would not work any injustice to the rights of a third party, and
7. As a result, the subrogee (party discharging the debt) stands in the shoes of the person whose claims have been discharged and thus succeeds to the right and priorities of the original creditor.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Plaintiff is subrogated to the rights of the injured party (the “subrogee”);
2. The subrogee made the payment to protect his or her own interest,
3. The subrogee did not act as a volunteer,
4. The subrogee was not primarily liable for the debt,
5. The subrogee paid off the entire debt,
6. Subrogation would not work any injustice to the rights of a third party, and
7. As a result, the subrogee (party discharging the debt) stands in the shoes of the person whose claims have been discharged and thus succeeds to the right and priorities of the original creditor.

Florida law also recognizes claims for conventional subrogation, which arise where a contract conveys to the party paying the debt of another the rights and remedies of the original creditor. See, e.g., Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 646 (Fla. 1999).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 225 So.3d 780, 785 (Fla. 2017); Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 646 (Fla. 1999).

First District: United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Essex Ins. Co., 188 So.3d 906, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Columbia Bank v. Turbeville, 143 So.3d 964, 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Second District: Tank Tech Inc. v. Valley Tank Testing, L.L.C., 334 So. 3d 658, 660-61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 18 So.3d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Third District: Biscayne Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Guar. Mgmt. Servs., 903 So. 2d 251, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Fourth District: Daimler Chrysler Ins. Co. v. Arrigo Enters, 63 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (The party who has discharged the debt stands in the shoes of the party whose claim has been discharged and therefore is entitled to the right and priorities of the original creditor.).

Fifth District: Bankers Lending Co. v. Jacobson, 253 So.3d 1174, 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 763 So. 2d 429, 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: In re Celotex Corp., 472 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2006).

Southern District: Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. Scents Corps., 2023 WL 2664260, *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2023); MSPA Claims I, LLC v. Century Surety Co., 2017 WL 998282, at *4 (S.D. Fla. March 15, 2017); PBM Dev., Inc. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., No. 10-81139-CIV, 2011 WL 13225273, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2011)

Middle District: BC Dental, Inc. v. FSH Maint., LLC, No. 8:23-CV-00664-WFJ-LSG, 2024 WL 5186887, at *6-7 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2024); S. Gardens Citrus Processing Corp., v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., 2023 WL 3931809, *4 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2023); S. Owners Ins. Co. v. Fla. Const. Servs., Inc., 569 F. Supp. 3d 1186, 1201-02 (M.D. Fla. 2021); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Superior Guar. Ins. Co., 441 F. Supp. 3d 1271, 1275 (M.D. Fla. 2020).

Northern District: Navelski v. Int’l Paper Co., No. 3:14cv445–MCR/CJK, 2018 WL 577979, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2018); In re Univ. Ctr. Hotel, Inc., 323 B.R. 306, 309-10 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 2005).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Subrogation, Equitable

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) “[A] settlement executed by the insured cannot act as a bar to an action for subrogation by the insurer against a third-party tortfeasor if, prior to the settlement, the tortfeasor learns of the insurer’s perfected subrogation rights.” See, e.g., Lincoln Nat. Health and Cas. v. Mitsubishi, 778 So. 2d 392, 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

(4) “Subrogation in equity is not available to a mere volunteer or stranger who, without any duty or obligation to intervene and without being so requested, pays the debt of another.” Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 646 (Fla. 1999); Tank Tech, Inc.v. Valley Testing, L.L.C., 244 So.3d 383, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

(5) If the plaintiff/subrogor has no rights against the third party, the subrogee has no rights against such party. Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 647 (Fla. 1999); Welch v. Complete Care Corp., 818 So.2d 645, 648 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002)

(6) Plaintiff does not allege that it is subrogated to the rights of the injured party. Florida Farm Bureau General Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 763 So. 2d 429, 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

[/MM_Access_Decision]