Court Opinion

ID: 9599114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:14:29.568083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:44.023547
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Wylie for the first reason stated: that Wylie failed to sustain her defense of res judicata by the “clear proof” required. But the additional grounds for reversal are dicta and unnecessary to the decision as presented. Of particular concern is the statement that there is no identity of party or privity between an insured and the subrogee insurer. Traditionally, a subrogee “stands in the shoes” of the insured and can pursue any cause of action assigned to it. “[Sjubrogation is a remedy recognized both in law and equity as a path of recovery whereby one is placed or substituted in the legal position of another. . . . The clear meaning of the language defining subrogation is that the subrogee is placed in the same position as the subrogor which includes the disabilities as well as the rights.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 176 Ga. App. 305, 308 (335 SE2d 681) (1985). Compare Miller v. Charles, 211 Ga. App. 386, 387 (1) (439 SE2d 88) (1993) (privity in subrogation of right to child support to DHR does not include child).
The majority draws a distinction between Wylie and her husband, another insured who received the earlier payments.1 But such a ruling still could create confusion in any case in which an incident such as this gives rise to multiple actions. A party to a subsequent suit growing out of the same incident as a subrogation claim already litigated or settled to judgment could attempt to reopen matters decided in that judgment by claiming that a different insured under the policy suffered the actual damage or accepted payment. We should not disturb this well-established area of law or decide an issue *286with such potential for far-reaching consequences until it is squarely presented.
Decided November 10, 1997.
Herman Pierre, Jr., for appellant.
Cobb & Walton, Bobby L. Cobb, for appellee.

 I note that the record contains no copy of the insurance policy in question, and we therefore are unable to determine with any certainty the exact status of Wylie or her husband under the policy, whether policyholder, named insured, or additional insured.