cmonfils | July 11, 2011
The Subrogator Spring/Summer 2011
By Kammy Poff, Allstate Insurance Company, Roanoake, VA and Daran Kiefer, Kreiner and Peters Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH
Bills/Legislation
In February of this year, the National Association of Subrogation Professionals (NASP) embarked on a trip to Pierre, South Dakota. House Bill 1184 had just passed in the South Dakota House of Representatives and was on its way to the Senate. NASP was slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. House Bill 1184 needed to be stopped in the Senate. (more…)
Category: Made Whole Rule, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Workers' Compensation |
No Comments »
Tags:
cmonfils | March 29, 2011
Matthiesen | Wickert| Lehrer, S.C March 2011 Newsletter
By Melissa M. Stone
For a second consecutive year, South Dakota has defeated an attempt to introduce “Made Whole” legislation into the insurance subrogation arena. The “Made Whole” Doctrine is an equitable defense to the subrogation or reimbursement rights of a subrogated insurance carrier or other party, requiring that before subrogation and/or reimbursement will be allowed, the insured must be made whole for all of its damages. Precisely what being “made whole” means varies from state to state, but the concept is, nonetheless, fairly similar in each state. A well-respected legal treatise defines the Made Whole Doctrine as follows: (more…)
Category: Made Whole Rule, South Dakota |
No Comments »
Tags:
cmonfils | March 10, 2011
www.subrogation.org
South Dakota House Bill 1184
If you have been following the progress of House Bill 1184, we would like to report that the bill has finally been defeated in the South Dakota Senate. The full Senate voted 11-24 not to bring the bill to the floor for a debate. This is the second consecutive year that the proposed codification of the Made Whole Doctrine has been stopped. (more…)
Category: Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota |
No Comments »
Tags:
cmonfils | March 7, 2011
www.subrogation.org
NASP testifies in South Dakota: Committee Rejects HB 1184
South Dakota’s House Bill 1184 was voted down in the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 24, 2011 by a 4-3 vote. Daran Kiefer, NASP’s Vice President, and Kammy Poff, NASP’s Amicus Chair, testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday on behalf of NASP as to the impact the bill would have on the subrogation industry and consumers. John Foster with State Farm and past President of NASP, also testified on behalf of his company as to the detrimental impact of the bill. NASP was quoted by the Associated Press in opposition to this bill. The article can be found HERE. (more…)
Category: Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Workers' Compensation |
No Comments »
Tags:
cmonfils | February 23, 2011
www.subrogation.org
South Dakota House Bill 1184
The South Dakota Legislature has once again introduced an anti-subrogation bill. The language in this year’s bill is almost identical to the language we saw in 2010. The bill states: (more…)
Category: South Dakota |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | March 3, 2010
The South Dakota bill would prohibit a subrogated insurer from participating in any recovery for “bodily injury” or “property damage” unless or until the injured party is “made whole”. S.D. Senate bill 169 failed to pass the Senate on February 22, 2010. However, the Senate reconsidered the bill on February 23rd, 2010 which resulted in a tie. The tie was broken by the Senate President and Lt. Governor. The bill now heads to the House for consideration.
Category: South Dakota, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | February 5, 2010
South Dakota Senate seeks to graft “made whole” into each and every subrogation provision which insurers seek to enforce in the state. The legislature in South Dakota is attempting to amend Title 58-11 of the Insurance Code by adding the following new section: (more…)
Category: Made Whole Rule, South Dakota |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | November 13, 2009
South Dakota’s Senate Bill 26 clarifies that a ruling by an employer that a bill or injury is not work related creates a presumption that the bill or injury is “non-work” related for purposes of any other insurance. An exclusion in an auto, health or disability policy for work related injuries would not apply. If the bill or injury is later determined to be “work-related”, then the proposed statute would obligate the employer to reimburse the health, auto or disability insurer for their payments.
Category: South Dakota, Workers' Compensation |
No Comments »
Tags:
