Court Opinion

ID: 9590146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:51:53.527482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:05.018851
License: Public Domain

GORDON, R.J.,
dissenting.
Kelly appeals a summary judgment. We must therefore assume, as alleged by Kelly, that Prudential owes money to its insured, Green, and Green owes money to Kelly.
Under an instrument signed by Green and delivered to Prudential, Green authorized Kelly to receive and pocket the money Prudential owes. Green by his pleading admits he signed “a claim form and assignment” to Kelly. A letter from Prudential calls the instrument an “assignment of benefits.”
Upon a remand, this suit offers the facility to do full justice. That facility should in my opinion be accommodated.
Green intended the instrument to be an assignment, and Prudential so regarded it. I would carry out the intent, rather than stick to a legal nicety.
Code § 8.01-13 affords another reason for reversal. Under that statute the beneficial owner, as well as an assignee, may maintain in his own name any action that the original contracting party might have brought. A beneficial owner includes a subrogee, so that an insurance carrier may bring an action against a tort feasor after making settlement with the other wrongdoer. Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Minefield, 213 Va. 797, 196 S.E.2d 75 (1973).
Under Nationwide a person that is a mere subrogee by virtue of a payment is a beneficial owner. Kelly, though not a subrogee, has the sole and undisputed right to receive the payment Prudential owes. It follows that the instrument delivered to Prudential made Kelly the beneficial owner, entitled to maintain this suit.