Initial tortfeasors may assert equitable subrogation against treating doctor--whose negligence aggravated injuries--after judgment entered against initial tortfeasor for full amount of injured person’s damages, even though judgment has not been fully paid

This case arose out of personal injuries Benjamin Edward Hintz suffered as a result of an automobile accident. Heintz was treated for his initial head injuries at Holmes Regional Medical Center (HRMC), where it was alleged his injuries were severely exacerbated by medical negligence. The plaintiffs successfully argued that under the Florida Supreme Court case Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1977), the initial tortfeasors were precluded from presenting evidence that medical negligence contributed to Heintz’s injuries. Final judgment was entered against the initial tortfeasors for $11,179,188.98, and their insurance company paid the plaintiffs its policy limit of $1.1 million, leaving the remainder of the judgment unpaid. The initial tortfeasors then filed complaints against HRMC and the medical providers, claiming they were entitled to equitable subrogation. The trial court dismissed the complaints, finding that the initial tortfeasors were barred from asserting an equitable subrogation claim because they had not paid the entirety of Heintz’s damages. On appeal, the Fifth District recognized that equity would not leave the parties without a remedy in this situation and found that the trial court erred in dismissing the equitable subrogation claims. Noting that the remedies available under Stuart v. Hertz Corp. and Underwriters at Lloyds v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 382 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1980), may be inconsistent with the application of a subrogation claim when the initial tortfeasor is unable to satisfy a judgment, the Fifth District certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: Is a party that has had judgment entered against it entitled to seek equitable subrogation from a subsequent tortfeasor when the judgment has not been fully satisfied?

_{Case Law Alerts, 4^th Quarter, October 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}