law-subrogation | contractual subrogation | equitable subrogation |
INSURANCE LAW DECISIONS OF THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
EQUITABLE AND CONTRACT-BASED SUBROGATION
Contractual (or conventional) subrogation is created by an agreement or contract that
grants the right to pursue reimbursement from a third party in exchange for payment of a
loss; see, e.g., Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ledbetter, 251 S.W.3d 31, 34 (Tex. 2008); Estrada v. Dillon, 44 S.W.3d 558,
560 (Tex. 2001); Guillot v. Hix, 838 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. 1992).
STATE AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ITS OWN SUBROGATION CLAIM,
WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM CLAIM FOR BENEFITS BY PARTICIPANT
ERS of Texas v. Duenez, No. 07-0410 (Tex. Jul 3, 2009)(petition dismissed)(Brister) (administrative law, agency
exclusive jurisdiction doctrine held not to apply to subrogation claim, which involves collection on a claim rather
than payment thereof)(DWOJ)
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS v. XAVIER DUENEZ AND IRENE DUENEZ;
from Calhoun County; 13th district (13-05-00729 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-05-07 Opinion below)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing
oral argument, the Court dismisses the petition for want of jurisdiction.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice Medina,
Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf]
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion (arguing the court of appeals should have dismissed the appeal for
want of a justiciable issue)
Justice Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion (favoring application of exclusive jurisdiction doctrine to the
subrogation dispute), in which Justice Johnson joined.
View Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 07-410 EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS v. DUENEZ
Construing the Act as a whole, we conclude that the court of appeals’ opinion rejecting ERS’s claim of exclusive
jurisdiction here does not conflict with this Court’s opinion in Duenez I affirming ERS’s exclusive jurisdiction of
questions relating to payment of benefits. Accordingly, without argument, we dismiss the petition for want of
jurisdiction.
TEXAS SUPREME COURT SUBROGATION CASES
Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ledbetter, 251 S.W.3d 31, No. 06-0814 (Tex. Apr. 4, 2008)(Brister)
(workers comp, subrogation claim)
TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PAULA LEDBETTER, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
CHARLES WADE LEDBETTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF DUSTIN WADE LEDBETTER, A
MINOR, AND TONJA LEDBETTER AND JAMIE LEDBETTER, INDIVIDUALLY; from Jones County; 11th
district (11-05-00098-CV, 192 S.W.3d 912, 06-01-06) 2 petitions
motion for emergency relief from declaratory judgment action dismissed as moot
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined, and in which Justice
Johnson joined as to Parts I through III and Part V.
Mid-Continent Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 236 S.W.3d 765, 774 (Tex. 2007) (“Contractual (or conventional)
subrogation is created by an agreement or contract that grants the right to pursue reimbursement from a third
party in exchange for payment of a loss . . . .”); see, e.g., Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ledbetter, 251 S.W.3d 31, 34 (Tex.
2008); Estrada v. Dillon, 44 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. 2001); Guillot v. Hix, 838 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. 1992).
Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 649 (Tex. 2007) (stating that “Texas workers’ compensation law
specifically embraces an insurer’s first-money right of subrogation”); Daughters of Charity Health Servs. of Waco
v. Linnstaedter, 226 S.W.3d 409, 412 (Tex. 2007) (“If a worker obtains a tort recovery, the compensation carrier
is reimbursed first . . . .”); Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Baker, 87 S.W.3d 526, 530 (Tex. 2002); Fort Worth Lloyds v.
Haygood, 246 S.W.2d 865, 869 (Tex. 1952).
Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 650 (Tex. 2007) (“We agree with those courts holding that contract-
based subrogation rights should be governed by the parties' express agreement and not invalidated by equitable
considerations that might control by default in the absence of an agreement.”).