Court Opinion

ID: 9748804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:13:34.894253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:39.584389
License: Public Domain

*202JOHNSON, Judge,
concurring:
I concur with my learned colleague’s Opinion which affirms the Judgment entered April 24, 1991. I agree that the right to pursue State Auto Mutual Insurance Company (“State Auto”) has been subrogated to Erie Insurance Group (“Erie”). I also agree that it is impermissible for Johnson to attempt to garnish the debt for which she has been fully compensated. I ■write separately to express my opinion that, regardless of whether the “agreement” would have effectively subrogated any rights, Erie acquired the exclusive right to pursue State Auto by virtue of having paid the entire remainder of the $75,000.00 judgment.
The Majority Opinion considers the import of the “agreement” between Erie and Johnson, and appears to conclude that subrogation resulted therefrom. Majority Opinion, at 195-196 n. 1. Having carefully considered that document, I cannot ascertain whether Johnson agreed to authorize Erie to proceed with a bad faith claim against State Auto on behalf of herself, on Erie’s own behalf, or on behalf of both Johnson and Erie. I am reluctant to hold, as a matter of law, that this document demonstrates the parties’ intention to deprive Johnson of a right to proceed with this action.
I would rely on that portion of the trial court’s Opinion, quoted approvingly in the Majority Opinion, that finds subrogation of the claim on the basis that Erie paid the entire remainder of the judgment:
[Plaintiffs right to bring an action for the difference between the defendant’s insurance coverage and the verdict was subrogated to her own underinsured motorist carrier. This subrogation occurred in the context of making her whole; i.e., she was paid the entire amount of the judgment.
Trial Court Opinion, April 17,1991, pp. 3; Majority Opinion at 197 (emphasis added).
I agree with the trial court that Johnson’s bad faith claim was subrogated to Erie because Erie paid the remainder of the judgment, regardless of whether the agreement between the parties would also have conferred the right. I -write *203separately because it is unclear to me whether the Majority finds that the right was subrogated by the “agreement” or by the payment of the claim.
I would also go beyond the majority’s conclusion that it is impermissible that Johnson proceed on this claim. I would hold that whenever an insured has been fully compensated by his or her insurer for a particular loss, the insurer alone possesses the right to proceed on that claim, and the insured no longer has any right of action against such a wrongdoer.
Accordingly, I Concur in the Result.