A surrogacy agreement reduces the value of the plaintiff's case, often dramatically. If the insurer insists on full reimbursement, the plaintiff will not. Surrogacy allows the insurance company to recover the costs it has paid on behalf of the insured, thus avoiding a double recovery for the same loss. However, the application of surrogacy may vary depending on the specific terms of the insurance policy and the applicable laws that deem it unfair to the insured.
This process ensures that while you receive full compensation for your losses, you don't unfairly enrich yourself by receiving duplicate payments for the same expense. Surrogacy underlines the principle that the source of guarantees rule is designed for victims to recover, not to provide them with an unexpected financial gain beyond their actual losses. Therefore, the collateral source rule allows an injured person to recover the full amount of provable damages, regardless of the amount of money the person received for their injuries from sources other than the defendant. The rule is based on the long-standing political decision that, should an unexpected gain arise as a result of an external payment, the party that would benefit from that collateral source—which the injured party probably paid through insurance premiums—is the person who was injured, not the one whose wrongful acts caused the injury. Defense attorneys are plotting to make ObamaCare make health coverage an obligation that overturns the logic of the collateral source rule.
Expenses paid by people other than the defendant, compensation, such as supplementary employee benefits, Social Security or Medicaid, and even services provided free of charge to the plaintiff are collateral sources for the defendant, who will not get credit for those expenses or be allowed to present them as evidence. In most cases, the rule remains a traditional principle of common law that prohibits the admission of evidence in a civil lawsuit to show that the victim has already received compensation from a source other than the defendant. The collateral source rule (CSR) is a law in state jurisdictions that prevents reducing damages awarded to a plaintiff for injury, illness, or disability by the amount already recovered from a third party, such as a insurance company. The collateral source rule is a legal doctrine in personal injury law that prohibits the at-fault party (the defendant) from reducing their liability by the amount the injured party (the plaintiff) receives from other sources, such as health insurance or workers' compensation.
Having an attorney who is familiar with the source of guarantees rule can pay enormous dividends when negotiating a settlement for your case. Therefore, consulting with a qualified attorney who specializes in personal injury law is crucial to understanding how the collateral source rule may affect your specific case and the potential impact on your compensation. The collateral source rule provides the justification for not allowing evidence that a spouse has remarried after a wrongful death. The collateral source rule applies in cases of personal injury, medical negligence, or workers' compensation.
In the Howell case, the Supreme Court upheld the Nishihama rule that plaintiffs cannot seek reimbursement for medical expenses that they did not have to pay personally. The collateral source rule remains a controversial law that is likely to come under increased scrutiny as civil liability reform progresses. You can find your state's collateral sources rule by contacting your state's attorney general's office or asking your personal injury attorney. The rule aims to prevent defendants from evading liability by claiming that the plaintiff has already received compensation for their injuries from another source.
However, it is still an uphill battle for defendants to circumvent the collateral source rule with these exceptions, as this argument can usually be adduced with much less damaging evidence...