Opinion ID: 60808
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Brought on Behalf of the Estate

Text: The district court found that Hartford lacked standing to sue Schneider on behalf of Morgan’s estate because it limited its subrogation rights in its settlement agreement with the estate. We agree. In Georgia, “[a] surety who has paid the debt of his principal shall be subrogated, both at law and in equity, to all the rights of the creditor . . . .” O.G.C.A. § 10-7-56. As the district court recognized, however, subrogation rights may be waived by an insurer as consideration to support a settlement agreement. See Rabun & Assocs. Constr., Inc. v. Berry, 623 S.E.2d 691, 695–96 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). Hartford expressly limited its subrogation rights in the settlement agreement to Dize, Sabrina Dize, and “any other person or entity who received either directly or indirectly any of the funds or property belonging to the Estate . . . .” It is undisputed that Schneider did not receive any of the misappropriated funds. Thus, because Hartford’s subrogation rights do not reach Schneider, Hartford does not have standing to sue Schneider. Hartford argues that Rabun & Assocs. should not apply here because it 4 involved an express waiver of subrogation rights. We disagree, however, because an express limitation of subrogation rights is the functional equivalent of an express waiver of those rights with respect to anyone who falls outside of the limitation. Accordingly, we affirm as to the breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence claims brought on behalf of Morgan’s estate.