Legal Opinion · Dissent

Milbank Insurance v. Henry

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1989No. 86-489Published

1DissentFahrnbruch, J.

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, subrogation clauses make medical pay coverage illusory. I would hold that *425subrogation clauses are unenforceable for the reason that they are against public policy.

In its opinion, the majority suggests that subrogation clauses are valid “based on contract” reasoning. The majority then upholds a medical pay subrogation clause on the theory that the insured has “bargained” for the clause, and therefore the courts should enforce it.

Realistically, there is no “bargaining” for a contract of insurance. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. Farmers Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Travelers Indemnity Company v. ChumbleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
  3. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company v. LeaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966
  4. Allstate Insurance v. DrukeArizona Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Peller v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API