The second significant ruling came when the circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of tucf, holding, inter alia, that Hartford and Total were not entitled under the doctrine of equitable subrogation to reimbursement of the various sums they had paid to Mr. Bunt. Hartford and Total appealed the adverse judgment in the Court of Appeals. Tucf cross-appealed saying that it was not the owner of the Datsun. In December 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Hartford and Total have applied to this Court for leave to appeal.
Equitable subrogation is a flexible, elastic doctrine of equity.
More recently, the Court discussed equitable subrogation in the context of a suit involving an attorney's negligence. Atlanta Int'l , supra at 522. This doctrine is best understood as allowing a wronged party to stand in the place of the client, assuming specific conditions are met. Atlanta Int'l, supra at 521-522. The Court of Appeals applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation in Citizens Ins Co of America v Buck, supra .