Avemco Insurance Company, and Lynn U. Goodfellow v. Cessna Aircraft Company
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1DissentHolloway, Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent.
The majority opinion correctly notes that state law governs the substantive rights of the parties in this diversity litigation. Specifically, the opinion properly relates the basic state-law principle that a subrogee stands in the same position as an assignee — “in the shoes of the subrogor or assignor.” Slip op. at 4. The opinion essentially adopts Cessna’s conclusion that since an insurer as subrogee has no greater rights than the subrogor and because Goodfellow failed to assert as a counterclaim the claim for indemnity or contribution against Cessna (now asserted by…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Martin v. WilksSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Timothy Jansen, Cross-Appellants v. City of Cincinnati v. Tilford Youngblood, Prospective Intervenors, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Patricia M. Krueger, and American States Insurance Company, Intervening v. James S. CartwrightCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- Gas Service Co. v. HuntCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.