Frost v. Porter Leasing Corp.
386 Mass. 425, 436 N.E.2d 387 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer that pays medical or hospital expense benefits to an insured does not have an implied right of subrogation to share in the insured's recovery against a tortfeasor unless such a right is expressly provided for in the insurance policy.
Facts:
- Frank F. Frost was injured in a motor vehicle accident.
- At the time, Frost was a beneficiary of a group health insurance policy issued by The Union Labor Life Insurance Company (Union Labor), which was paid for by his employer.
- Frost incurred medical expenses totaling $26,566.04, for which Union Labor paid benefits of $22,679.57.
- Frost's insurance policy with Union Labor did not contain an express provision for subrogation.
- Frost and his wife negotiated a lump-sum settlement of $250,000 with the tortfeasor, which represented the limit of the tortfeasor's liability insurance policy.
- The settlement was intended to cover all of Frost's damages, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, and impaired earning capacity, as well as his wife's claim for loss of consortium.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank F. Frost and Rilla Frost filed a tort action in Superior Court against the owner and driver of a motor vehicle.
- The Union Labor Life Insurance Company (Union Labor) intervened in the Frosts' action, asserting a right of subrogation.
- The Frosts settled their claim against the defendants for $250,000, and the tort action was dismissed.
- The dispute over the settlement proceeds continued between the Frosts and Union Labor.
- The Superior Court judge, having concluded that Union Labor had a subrogation right, allowed the parties' motion to report the legal question directly to the Appeals Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court granted the Frosts' application for direct appellate review, bypassing the Appeals Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a group insurer that pays medical and hospital expense benefits have an implied right of subrogation in the insured's recovery against a tortfeasor, when the insurance policy does not contain an express subrogation clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Hennessey, C.J.
No. In the absence of an express subrogation clause in the policy, an insurer that has paid medical or hospital expense benefits has no right to share in the proceeds of the insured’s recovery against a tortfeasor. The court distinguished personal injury insurance from property insurance, where subrogation is readily implied to prevent double recovery for a quantifiable loss. Unlike a property damage claim, a personal injury recovery involves unliquidated damages like pain and suffering, making it difficult to determine if the insured has received a 'windfall' or duplicative compensation. Attempting to isolate medical expenses and calculate any excess recovery would be complex, artificial, and would impose significant litigation burdens on the insured, undermining the efficiency of settlements. When subrogation is not part of the bargained-for exchange, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the insured.
Concurring - Wilkins, J.
No. While agreeing with the outcome, the concurrence reaches it on different grounds, rejecting the majority's concern about the administrative difficulty of subrogation. The better reason to deny an implied right of subrogation is fairness and notice to the insured. A lay person purchasing insurance cannot be expected to know about a common law right of subrogation that is not mentioned in the policy. To be enforceable, the insurer's right to recover from the insured's settlement proceeds must be explicitly disclosed in the insurance contract, ensuring the insured is aware of all limitations on their coverage.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear default rule in Massachusetts that rejects the doctrine of implied subrogation for medical and hospital benefits. It shifts the burden squarely onto insurers to include express subrogation clauses in their policies if they wish to recover payments from an insured's tort settlement. The ruling protects insured individuals by preventing insurers from claiming a portion of a general settlement that may not have fully compensated the victim for all their losses, particularly non-economic damages like pain and suffering. This precedent solidifies the distinction between property insurance (where indemnity is key) and personal insurance, prioritizing the insured's reasonable expectations and right to be made whole over the insurer's equitable claims.
