Case Title: Carr v. The Home Insurance Company

Citation: 

Docket Number: 950005

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 1995-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  All the Justices 
 
TINA MARIE CARR 
 
v.   Record No. 950005 
OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
                                     November 3, 1995 
THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, 
AS SUBROGEE FOR ITS INSURED,  
GREEN THUMB ENTERPRISES 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 
 
Thomas D. Horne, Judge 
 
 
In this case we consider whether an uninsured motorist 
insurance carrier can assert a claim for equitable 
indemnification from the uninsured motorist based on the 
carrier's payment of its insured's damage claim. 
 
On December 4, 1991, an automobile accident occurred 
between two vehicles, one driven by Tina Marie Carr and the 
other driven by an employee of Green Thumb Enterprises (Green 
Thumb).  As a result of the accident, the Green Thumb vehicle 
was damaged and its driver and a passenger, also an employee of 
Green Thumb, were injured.  Carr's liability insurance carrier 
denied coverage.  Green Thumb sought uninsured motorist 
coverage from its insurer, The Home Insurance Company (Home).  
Home settled with Green Thumb paying it $29,500 for personal 
injuries suffered by the employees.
1   
 
Two years and six days after the accident, Home filed a 
motion for judgment against Carr alleging that Carr's 
negligence caused the accident.  Home, as Green Thumb's 
                     
    
1Home also paid Green Thumb $4,210 for property damage and 
towing charges.  Recovery of these amounts is not involved in 
this appeal. 
 
 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
                    
subrogee, sought recovery of the "amount paid by them on behalf 
of their insured as a result of [Carr's] negligence."  Carr 
filed a plea of the statute of limitations asserting that the 
action was untimely because, as Green Thumb's subrogee, Home 
was required to bring the action within the two-year period 
prescribed for personal injury actions in Code § 8.01-243(A). 
 
Prior to consideration of Carr's plea, Home was allowed to 
file an amended motion for judgment seeking recovery against 
Carr based on "contribution and/or implied or equitable 
indemnification."  Thereafter, the trial court denied Carr's 
plea, finding that Home's motion for judgment was timely filed 
because actions for contribution or indemnification accrue at 
the time "the contributee or the indemnitee has paid or 
discharged the obligation."  Code § 8.01-249(5).  The trial 
court subsequently granted Home's motion for summary judgment 
and entered judgment against Carr.  We awarded Carr an appeal. 
 
Carr asserts here, as she did below, that the facts of the 
case did not support Home's claim for equitable indemnification 
and that Home's sole cause of action against her was a personal 
injury action as Green Thumb's subrogee.
2  We agree.  Equitable 
indemnification arises when a party without personal fault, is 
nevertheless legally liable for damages caused by the 
 
    
2Home abandoned its claim based on contribution.  Although 
Home refers to implied indemnification, it uses that term 
interchangeably with equitable indemnification and does not 
argue that there was an implied contract of indemnification 
between Carr and Home. 
 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
negligence of another.  Equitable principles allow the innocent 
party to recover from the negligent actor for the amounts paid 
to discharge the liability.  Maryland Casualty Co. v. Aetna 
Casualty & Surety Co., 191 Va. 225, 232, 60 S.E.2d 876, 879 
(1950); McLaughlin v. Siegel, 166 Va. 374, 377, 185 S.E. 873, 
874 (1936). 
 
A prerequisite to recovery based on equitable 
indemnification is the initial determination that the 
negligence of another person caused the damage.  Without that 
determination, neither the negligent actor nor the innocent 
party can be held liable for the damages claimed.  In this 
case, at the time Home filed its motion for judgment, there had 
been no determination that Carr's actions were negligent or 
that her negligence caused the damages claimed by Green Thumb. 
 Consequently, the elements necessary to support equitable 
indemnification in favor of Home were not met. 
 
Under the circumstances of this case, the only cognizable 
cause of action available to Home was that of subrogation as 
provided in Code § 38.2-2206(G).  See United Servs. Auto. Ass'n 
v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 218 Va. 861, 867, 241 S.E.2d 784, 
788 (1978).  Home did not bring its action seeking recovery 
from Carr within the two year limitation period for personal 
injury actions.  Therefore, the trial court erred in denying 
Carr's plea of the statute of limitations. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be 
 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
reversed and final judgment entered dismissing Home's claim for 
amounts paid for personal injuries sustained by Green Thumb's 
employees. 
                                                Reversed and
 
final judgment.