Follow
EmailDuring these economically troubled times, this office is seeing an upswing in cases that we defend where our opponent is an insurance company seeking subrogation. In the past, these defense cases were few and far between. With intercompany arbitrations resolving many of these disputes, it appears to us that where such agreements are not controlling, more and more carriers are opting to file small property damage claims that previously may have just gone uncollected.
In addition, we have found that the insurance companies in such cases are far less willing than they were in the past to negotiate based upon the simple vagaries of litigation. Without some specific defense to which the defendant can point, many of these insurance companies will not negotiate for some automatically discounted recovery.
This change in circumstances obligates us as defense attorneys to remind the subrogation plaintiffs about the exigencies of the burden of proof. Many of these subrogation cases are brought in Nevada Justice Courts, where the jurisdictional limits are lower. While it is true that if these cases have been brought in small claims the rules of evidence would be relaxed, in a regular civil trial in justice court, the rules of evidence still apply. Many subrogation attorneys rely simply on the fact that the cost of defense will possibly bring them a resolution. They do forget that the burden is on them to prove their case.
We find that many of these attorneys don’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery, and evidence sufficiently to make proof at their trials. We are hoping that the courts will enforce the rules sufficiently to obligate those plaintiffs to satisfy the rules before cases can move forward. Time will tell regarding the success of this practice. Stay tuned to the Mills and Associates blog to find out how these strategies play out in such cases. We will keep you up to date on the many things that we are doing at Mills and Associates to respond to the needs of our clients.
About Michael Mills
