Court Opinion

ID: 9758308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:20:29.386949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:49.210985
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING. After the foregoing was filed, the defendant’s motion for rehearing was granted.
Per curiam.
On rehearing, defendant contends that because there is nothing in the pleadings or in the record that was originally before this court showing a subrogation or assignment clause contained in the policy issued by Allstate to Moreau, this court may not rule, as it did, “that Allstate is entitled to bring an action against Reserve on the basis of Moreau’s assignment clause.”
However, the inclusion of a subrogation or assignment clause in insurance policies is standard practice. Defendant in its original brief argued extensively that Allstate could “take nothing by way of assignment” and that subrogation could not be a basis of recovery. Plaintiff in its original brief also argued contractual subrogation. On rehearing, the insurance policy itself was appended to plaintiffs brief showing such a subrogation clause and this was revealed by plaintiff to defendant in answer to interrogatories. *810Both parties have fully argued the effect of this clause and nothing has been brought to our attention which alters our previous opinion. Any deficiency in plaintiff’s pleadings may be remedied by amendment.
Defendant’s reliance upon Holland v. Company, 83 N.H. 482, 145 A. 142 (1929) and McCullough v. Company, 90 N.H. 409, 10 A.2d 245 (1939) in support of its claim that there can be no subrogation in this case is misplaced. Those cases related to workmen’s compensation, liability for which is imposed by statute separate and distinct from any right the injured employee may have against a third party.

Former opinion modified by deletion of the last sentence thereof; previous result affirmed.

March 31, 1977