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
1,124 charsThe trustees’ theory of liability — permitting recovery on an assignment of contribution rights even though it might provide an additional recovery for the same loss sustained — has been recognized in a number of other jurisdictions. See Bush v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1374 (1992); Robarts v. Diaco, 581 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991); Puckett v. Empire Stove Co., 183 I11. App. 3d 181 (1989). The Robarts case is particularly analogous to the circumstances presented here. The settlement of the underlying case (a medical malpractice wrongful death claim brought by the decedent’s estate) involved an assignment of the defendant doctors’ right of contribution against another defendant — the hospital in which the surgery took place. The Robarts court acknowledged that the plaintiff might recover more than full compensation for the injury. In upholding the assignment, the court emphasized that any surplus recovery would arise, not from the malpractice claim, but rather from “the right of contribution that arises once the [medical malpractice claim] has been settled.” Robarts, 581 So. 2d at 915.