Legal Opinion

Royal Indemnity Co. v. Pharr

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 28, 1956No. 36058PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQuillian, J.

A necessaiy ingredient of subrogation is that a valid right exists in the subrogor with which the subrogee is entitled to be vested either by operation of law or by formal transfer. The petition not showing that any right of action against Maddox accrued to the defendant, it obviously set forth no right to recover damages from him for not assigning such right to the plaintiff.

In Arnold v. Jacobs, 319 Mass. 130, 133 (65 N. E. 2d 4), it was held: “The policy provides that Tn the event of any payment under this policy, the company shall be subrogated to all the insured’s rights of recovery…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kelly v. Strouse & Bros.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  2. General Exchange Insurance v. DriscollMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
  3. Stevens v. Stewart-Warner Speedometer Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  4. Irvin v. LockeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
  5. Kenner v. Century Indemnity Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Travelers Insurance v. Commercial Union InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
  3. Poole Truck Line, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
  4. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Southeastern Fidelity InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
  5. Godfrey v. Home Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1960

2 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