Application of the doctrine of subrogation often occurs at the expense of the insured. As a result, the common law developed the made whole doctrine, which limits the use of subrogation prior to an insured party receiving full compensation for damages. The primary purpose of this article is to explore the made whole doctrine as the principal weapon used by contemporary courts to curb the harsh effect of contractual subrogation on the rights of the insured. Section I of this article provides an overview of the expansion and use of subrogation in various types of insurance contracts. Section II examines the made whole doctrine, which has been utilized by modem courts to reign in the impact of subrogation on insured parties. This section identifies each jurisdiction that has adopted the doctrine and documents the circumstances and conditions required for its application on a state-by-state basis. While section II provides a comprehensive discussion of the made whole rule in the context of legal and conventional subrogation, a detailed discussion of the doctrine with regards to statutory subrogation on a state-by-state, statuteby-statute basis, is beyond the scope of this article. Section III attempts to catalog the various forms of the made whole doctrine and to identify the characteristics common to the respective forms. This section also associates each form with the jurisdictions that follow it.
Johnny C. Parker,
Made Whole Doctrine: Unraveling the Enigma Wrapped in the Mystery of Insurance Subrogation, The,
70 Mo. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol70/iss3/3