“The Court reasoned that subrogation, by definition, requires that the subrogee obtain the right to proceed against a third party and that the non-duplication provision provided no such right. Accordingly, the reimbursement provision was not prohibited by statute,” Judge Robert J. Humphreys wrote for the majority. “For purposes of this case, Reynolds Metals Co. contradicts Kirkpatrick’s argument that USAA retains some subrogation right against Brown. Reynolds Metals Co. directly states that an insurer’s right to reimbursement from its insured is not equivalent to their right of subrogation against the defendant.”


CEO of Speaker Media and Marketing, is the "Secret Weapon of Personal Injury Lawyers and Trial Attorneys" throughout the United States. Specializing as a marketing consultant to lawyers, with a primary focus on content marketing, social media, online video and mobile marketing strategies.