A local insurance adjuster asks whether the “made-whole” doctrine applies in Nevada in the auto subrogation context. This is one more great question the that is addressed by the Nevada Law Blogs. However, as you will see, the answer is tremendously confusing.
In 2005, the Nevada Supreme Court enthusiastically embraced the concept of the made-whole doctrine. The case of Canfora v. Coast Hotels & Casinos, Inc., 121 Nev. 771, 121 P.3d 599 (2005) was a fight as to how much the Plaintiff’s employer’s health care trust would get of settlement that the injured plaintiff had negotiated with the tortfeasor.
The Court describes the made-whole doctrine as “’a general equitable principle of insurance law’ that prevents an insurance company from enforcing its subrogation rights before the insured has been fully reimbursed for their losses.” 121 P.2d at 604. The Court explains that the doctrine limits an insurance plan’s subrogation rights where an insured has not received compensation for his total loss. Id. quoting Cagle v. Bruner, 112 F.3d 1510, 1521 (11th Cir. 1997). [Continue reading]