Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Citation
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Parent Document
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1998-07-28
Other Sections in This Document (14)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
Full Text
950 charsWhen a claim is assigned, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and is in the same position as the assignor would have been in without the assignment. See Graves Equip., Inc. v. M. Dematteo Constr. Co., 397 Mass. 110, 112 (1986). See also Grise v. White, 355 Mass. 698, 701 (1969). Although this case involves the assignment of a right of contribution, we discern no reason why the trustees should not recover. An action for contribution is not an action of a personal nature, but rather a claim for equitable division of damages. Wausau’s claim is for recovery for overpayment of the share of defense costs paid to defend the trustees in the underlying action. No principle, established by decision or otherwise, requires a different result even though the trustees received the benefit of Wausau’s payment for counsel fees in the underlying case, as long as Royal is not required to pay twice. Barry v. Duffin, 290 Mass. 398, 402 (1935).