Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Nebraska, Inc. v. Dailey
Nebraska Supreme Court
1DissentStephan, J.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority has made an unwarranted departure from the controlling legal rule clearly articulated in Shelter Ins. Cos. v. Frohlich, 243 Neb. 111, 498 N.W.2d 74 (1993), and Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Swartzendruber, 253 Neb. 365, 570 N.W.2d 708 (1997), that equitable principles of subrogation may be modified by a specific contractual provision.
The group health insurance policy at issue here gives Blue Cross a contractual subrogation interest in Dailey’s personal injury claim against Union Pacific and a contractual right to reimbursement from Dailey…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Rimes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- Culver v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
- Powell v. Blue Cross and Blue ShieldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1990
- Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1997
- Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.