Subrogation Overview: Learning the Ins and Outs of Subrogation Law 

Marcus Hornacek*

Subrogation: Definition and History

Subrogation is a term and “legal process”¹ that may not be entirely familiar to everyone. “Subrogation is the process where one party assumes the legal rights of another.”² It “is the process that allows your insurance company to recover money from the party responsible for a loss.”³ “Put simply, when your insurer pays for your claim, they may then pursue reimbursement from the person—or their insurer—who was actually at fault.”⁴ Subrogation is not a new concept; rather, it has deep historical roots,⁵ and is currently a practice that is profoundly instrumental to society.⁶

Subrogation: Importance

One notable benefit of subrogation is that it discourages “future actors from engaging in loss-causing conduct.”⁷ Specifically, “[i]f potential loss-victims are completely indemnified [via insurance], subrogation will be the primary means by which a loss-causing actor will be held accountable.”⁸ Hence, subrogation is a mechanism that should cause parties to think twice about, or deter them from, engaging in harmful conduct.⁹

Another reason why subrogation is foundational to the legal system is because it embodies the principle of justice insofar as it provides an avenue to make the responsible party pay for their conduct.¹⁰ Subrogation also positively impacts the caliber of both an insurance company’s premiums and deductibles.¹¹ Without subrogation, there would be a significant strain on an insurance company’s financial ability to meet the desired price points for their customers¹² because insurance companies would not be able to recoup what they paid out to their customers after a loss via a subrogation action.¹³

Losses Giving Rise to Subrogation Lawsuits

Not all subrogation cases look the same. For instance, a subrogation case may involve a property loss in which physical property gets damaged.¹⁴ A readily identifiable type of loss is property damage caused by fire.¹⁵ Other property damage losses may include water, faulty construction, and even exposure to toxins.¹⁶ Additionally, a subrogation case may involve an automobile accident.¹⁷

There are also many instances where subrogation is pursued in losses caused by consumer products.¹⁸ However, with products cases, there are important considerations an attorney must contemplate.¹⁹ According to Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C.:

Product liability subrogation claims are some of the most complicated, challenging, and difficult recoveries to make in the field of subrogation. This is because the burden of proving a product defect can be time-consuming and expensive—seemingly disqualifying some smaller subrogation claims from being cost-effectively pursued.²⁰

Thus, meticulous case management is critical.²¹ Especially before pursuing a products subrogation lawsuit, the attorney should consult with their client to determine the outlook on the chances of recovery, the size of the loss, and if it is financially worth it to commence litigation.²²

Experts in Subrogation Cases

A key contemporary consideration for subrogation lawsuits is the strength and reliability of a party’s expert.²³ Especially for complex subrogation cases, having a reliable, strong, and well-reasoned expert opinion is critically important.²⁴ Having knowledgeable experts is foundational to building a strong case because subrogation oftentimes involves facts that turn on technical processes.²⁵

It is critical that attorneys help their clients understand the value and importance of retaining strong experts, even if doing so may require a greater financial commitment.²⁶

In Qasim v. Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey determined that the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Pugh,²⁷ was precluded from testifying²⁸ and concluded:  

Because Dr. Pugh is not qualified to render expert opinions on fire causation, his conclusions on fire causation and adequate warnings are unreliable, and his analysis does not fit the proceedings, his testimony must be excluded.²⁹

Qasim v. Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. serves as a helpful reminder to subrogation attorneys that no matter what expert is being relied upon, their testimony must be well reasoned and meet accepted legal standards.³⁰

Conclusion

Subrogation is a truly fascinating practice in today’s dynamic legal world. If you are a law student or legal professional thinking about where to gain experience, subrogation is a rewarding and meaningful practice area to explore.

---

*Marcus Hornacek, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law Class of 2027 (Associate Editor)

1. See Understanding Subrogation Claims in Wisconsin Personal Injury Cases, Doar Drill & Skow, https://www.doardrill.com/personal-injury/understanding-subrogation-claims-in-wisconsin-personal-injury-cases/ [https://perma.cc/H4K9-WCF8] (last visited Mar. 14, 2026) (identifying subrogation as a “legal process”). ↩︎
2. Subrogation, Legal Info. Inst. (June 2024), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subrogation [https://perma.cc/D86G-64BQ]. ↩︎
3. Learn about subrogation in insurance, Sentry, https://www.sentry.com/what-we-offer/resources/articles/subrogation-in-insurance [https://perma.cc/UXC3-G3B7] (last visited Mar. 9, 2026). ↩︎
4. Id. ↩︎
5. See Gary L. Wickert, The Societal Benefits of Subrogation, Mwl, https://www.mwl-law.com/helpful-resources/defending-subrogation/ [https://perma.cc/9GV6-3R5G] (last visited Mar. 9, 2026) (hereinafter Gary L. Wickert) (explaining that subrogation principles can be traced back to the time of the Roman Empire, were contemplated in the Magna Carta, and are derived from the law of suretyship). ↩︎
6. Id.   ↩︎
7. Brendan S. Maher & Radha A. Pathak, Understanding and Problematizing Contractual Tort Subrogation, 40 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 49, 55 (2008). See also Insurance Subrogation & Protecting the Right to Recovery, Rathbone Group (Feb. 24, 2025, at 08:00 CST), https://www.rathbonegroup.com/insuranc e-subrogation-protecting-the-right-to-recovery/ [https://perma.cc/SQC6-Y3PS] (hereinafter Maher)(stating that subrogation “is a societal deterrent for hurting others, whether physically or financially.”). ↩︎
8. Maher, supra note 7, at 56. ↩︎
9. See Maher, supra note 7, at 55–56 (identifying and describing the deterrence effect of subrogation). See also The Right to Subrogation Recovery: Understanding Subrogation Claims, Rathbone Group (Jan. 13, 2025, at 12:59 CST), https://www.rathbonegroup.com/the-right-to-subrogation-recovery-understanding-subrogation-claims/ [https://perma.cc/F2GV-CT72] (offering questions to illustrate the deterrence benefit and how accountability closely relates to it: “Consider a negligent party who causes damages to another party, only for those damages to be covered by a third party. What incentive does that tortfeasor have to stop acting in bad faith? With subrogation, tortfeasors can be held accountable for their actions, which serves as a deterrent.”). ↩︎
10. See Maher, supra note 7, at 55–56 (advocating that subrogation fulfills this objective). See also Insurance Subrogation & Protecting the Right to Recovery, Rathbone Group (Feb. 24, 2025, at 08:00 CST), https://www.rathbonegroup.com/insurance-subrogation-protecting-the-right-to-recovery/ [https://perma.cc/SQC6-Y3PS] (stating “The insurer’s right to subrogation protects the insured and the insurer while ensuring that bad actors are held accountable for their actions.”). ↩︎
11. See Gary L. Wickert, supra note 5 (describing that “subrogation is a key mechanism by which insurance premiums are kept in check and held to a minimum.”). See also The Right to Subrogation Recovery: Understanding Subrogation Claims, Rathbone Group (Jan. 13, 2025, at 12:59 CST), https://www.rathbonegroup.com/the-right-to-subrogation-recovery-understanding-subrogation-claims/ [https://perma.cc/F2GV-CT72] (identifying the impact subrogation has on insurance premiums and deductibles). ↩︎
12. See The Right to Subrogation Recovery: Understanding Subrogation Claims, Rathbone Group (Jan. 13, 2025, at 12:59 CST), https://www.rathbonegroup.com/the-right-to-subrogation-recovery-understanding-subrogation-claims/ [https://perma.cc/F2GV-CT72] (explaining the impact and importance of subrogation in terms of premiums and deductibles). ↩︎
13. See Sentry, supra note 3 (explaining the concept of subrogation). ↩︎
14. See Kami W., A Foundational Guide to Property Subrogation: Evidence, Urgency, & Liability, Rathbone Group (Jan. 26, 2026, at 08:00 CST), https://www.rathbonegroup.com/a-foundational-guide-to-property-subrogation-evidence-urgency-liability/ [https://perma.cc/ETV8-BKEN] (describing subrogation in property loss cases). ↩︎
15. Id. (identifying fire as a property loss case). ↩︎
16.  Id. (listing other property loss cases). ↩︎
17. See generally Subrogation: What Is It and Why Is It Important?, Allstate, (Jan. 2026), https://www.allstate.com/resources/what-is-subrogation [https://perma.cc/V3W4-76LM] (describing subrogation in the context of car accidents). ↩︎
18. See Product Liability and Product Recall, Mwl, https://www.mwl-law.com/practice-areas/product-liability-and-product-recall/ [https://perma.cc/7BJ6-D7FS] (hereinafter Mwl) (describing subrogation relating to products cases ↩︎
19. See generally Mwl, supra note 18.   ↩︎
20. Mwl, supra note 18. ↩︎
21. See Mwl, supra note 18 (describing the importance of case management). ↩︎
22. It is critical that the attorney consider these factors in every type of subrogation case, but the MWL article specifically homes in on product cases. See generally Mwl, supra note 18. ↩︎
23. See generally Gus Sara, From Warning Labels to Fire Causation: Where Plaintiffs’ Expert Fell Short in Qasim, White and Williams LLP (Mar. 2, 2026), https://www.whiteandwilliams.com/the-subrogation-strategist/from-warning-labels-to-fire-causation-where-plaintiffs-expert-fell-short-in-qasim#:~:text=This%20case%20serves%20as %20a,standards%20to%20support%20their%20opinions [https://perma.cc/P4QV-LGA7] (analyzing a New Jersey decision that reinforced key considerations surrounding experts); Lee R. Wickert, Subrogation’s Weakest Link: How Inadequate Experts Kill Good Subrogation Cases, Mwl (June 10, 2025), https://www.mwl-law.com/subrogations-weakest-link-how-inadequate-experts-kill-good-subrogation-cases/ [https://perma.cc/AH58-RMWQ] (hereinafter Lee R. Wickert) (describing why strong and reliable expert opinions are foundational to subrogation cases); Daubert & What Makes a Good Subrogation Expert, Rathbone Group (Sep. 20, 2021, at 06:00 CST), https://www.rathbonegroup.com/daubert-what-makes-a-good-subrogation-expert/ [https://perma.cc/Y4VL-V2U4] (hereinafter Daubert) (giving background into an expert’s importance in a subrogation case).    ↩︎
24. See generally Sara, supra note 23; Lee R. Wickert, supra note 23; Daubert, supra note 23.    ↩︎
25. See Daubert, supra note 23 (explaining that “accidents may require technical explanation in order for a judge or jury to determine liability by understanding what exactly caused an accident or whether individuals involved in the case were negligent in performing their duties.” Moreover, “the expert is brought in after [a] claim is brought to help explain what happened.”). ↩︎
26. See generally Lee R. Wickert, supra note 24 (describing the risk a party takes when they choose to “go cheap” with experts). ↩︎
27. See Qasim v. Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., No. 21-18744, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5064, at *3 (D.N.J. 2026). ↩︎
28. Id. at *20–21. ↩︎
29. Id. See also Sara, supra note 23 (analyzing Qasim v. Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. and the court’s decision “to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert testimony.”). ↩︎
30. See Sara, supra note 23 (stating that “This case serves as a cautionary tale for subrogation professionals to make sure experts have adequate qualifications for the opinions they are expected to offer and follow reliable methods and standards to support their opinions.”). ↩︎