Authored By: Jasaswini Tripathy
SOA National Institute of Law
INTRODUCTION
Life is unpredictable, one never knows what to expect in the next instance. Through the millennial, from early on people have been engaged in sea travel where merchants and business owners faced the risk of their ships capsizing, to the current scenario, where both individuals and juristic persons alike, take measures to protect their homes, health, vehicles, businesses, etc. This base instinct to protect oneself from loss and damage is inherent among all. And it is this specific instinct that gave rise to insurance, which is not merely a luxury but a need or shall we say a necessity in this unpredictable, risk-laden world. Marine insurance was the first acknowledged form of insurance, that protected the interests of the merchants and businessmen from sustaining irrevocable damage during sea voyages. But as time passed, societies along with its necessities developed, which in turn necessitated broader spectrum of insurances. After the Great Fire of London in 1666, fire insurances came into play followed by insurances for accidents, industrial hazards and life itself, evolving into an essential component of both economic and social existence.1
Insurance at its base is way of transferring risk or risk sharing depending upon the circumstances. Insurance is an agreement whereby an individual agrees to pay certain amount of consideration in the form of premium to an insurance company and in exchange the insurance company undertakes any financial burden that may ensue from unfortunate circumstances. This not only allows economic stability but also a peace of mind, due to which individuals and businesses can carry out their work carefully but confidently in the face of uncertainty. Legally, an insurance is a contract of indemnity, no more no less. Simply put, the insurer compensates the insured for any loss or damage sustained, not a single rupee more or less. Insurance is guided by the simple idea that it is to compensate not enrich, and this same idea is the base of all principles that come under the umbrella of an insurance, one of which is the doctrine of subrogation.2
Before diving into the grammatical meaning and origin of doctrine of subrogation, let us try to understand the idea through a simple illustration.
Let us take into consideration, that a person A owns a warehouse. A has insured the warehouse against fire hazards with an insurance company B. Now, unfortunately due to the negligent act of the neighbour of A, the warehouse caught on fire, in which the warehouse was completely destroyed. Since, A had an insurance for such circumstances, B (the insurer) compensated the claim of A. Now, if the illustration ended here then A would have went ahead and sued the neighbour for damages, ultimately recovering twice the amount for the loss of the same subject matter. However, this goes against the principle of indemnity, leading to double recovery and unjust enrichment of A. But, by law as soon as B paid the claim amount, it gained the right to step into the position of A and exercise the rights that A would be entitled to, to bring a suit against the neighbour to recover the amount paid by B to A. Here, B stepped into the shoes of A, that is, the insurer stepped into the shoes of the insured, this is called the principle of subrogation.
Thus, subrogation ensures fairness. The insured is fully indemnified but not unjustly enriched; the insurer, having compensated the insured, rightfully claims recovery from the party truly responsible for the loss. Without subrogation, the very balance of insurance would collapse, encouraging fraud, double recovery and inequitable burdens on insurers.3
While the principle of subrogation gained attention during the evolution of the English Law, its roots can be traced back to the Roman law. One of the most prominent jurist of the 18th century, Lord Mansfield, emphasised that insurers are “put in the place of the insured” once compensation is paid, allowing them to sue the wrongdoer in the insured’s name.4 This principle soon became an important part of insurance across the world, and was later codified in statutes such as the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, in England.5 In India too, the doctrine has been judicially recognised, though courts have consistently drawn distinctions between “pure subrogation” and “subrogation-cum-assignment.” In Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court initially held that when rights are assigned to the insurer, it could not maintain a consumer complaint in its own name.6 However, this position was clarified in Economic Transport Organisation v. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., where the Court reconciled the concepts and upheld the insurer’s right to sue under subrogation-cum- assignment, thereby shaping Indian jurisprudence on the subject.7
In today’s world, subrogation has expanded its reach beyond just marine or fire insurance. It now encompasses a wide range of indemnity insurance contracts, such as motor vehicle insurance, property insurance, health insurance that covers medical expenses, etc. For instance, when an insurer covers hospital expenses resulting from an accident caused by a careless driver, the insurer has the right to reclaim that amount from either the driver or their insurance company. This not only protects insurers from heavy financial burden but also ensures that the costs associated with liability are shared more fairly throughout society.
There are some who also view that subrogation unjustly transfers the risk on the third party, while the insured has already paid premium to the insurer to take on the risk, and as such it is the insurer who is being benefited here, first by getting the premium and then by recovering the compensation from the third party. However, in the presence of such criticisms, the judiciary as well as the legislatures have backed the principle of subrogation, stating that it is of significance in minimising insurance system abuse and holding up the principle of integrity.
Despite of the criticisms, what still shines clear is that subrogation is not just a hidden clause within insurance agreements but also an ethical safeguard and legal protection that ensures that the insurance system remains just and sustainable in the larger scheme of things. It balances the rights of the 3 parties involved, that is, the insured- who pays the premium and thus is entitled to be protected from loss, the insurer- who shall not face excessive burdens beyond which is agreed for and lastly the wrongdoer- who must take responsibility of their negligent actions.
The more and more we study into this doctrine, its real-life implications and importance becomes clearer. We live in a society where almost everything can be insured, here, subrogation plays a vital role in making sure that unjust advantages cannot be derived out of unfortunate events. This doctrine establishes that the principle of indemnity is upheld and the purpose is protected, that is, providing compensation nit unjust enrichment.
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF SUBROGATION
The doctrine of subrogation, which can justly be said to be one of the most important elements of insurance law, did not come to be from the modern legal system. Its roots can be found in Roman law, where the concept of cessio actionum allowed an individual who paid off someone else’s debt to take the place of the creditor.8 This was particularly observed in suretyship situations, where a guarantor who fulfilled the obligation of the debtor gained the creditor’s rights against such debtor. And it is through this Roman concept that subrogation was established ensuring that losses shall not burden those who simply fulfilled another’s obligation in their stead.
Civil law systems in Europe were established on this basis. For instance, French law codified the principle that “a surety who pays the debt of a principal debtor is entitled to all the rights of the creditor against the debtor.”9 By incorporating substitution into civil law, European systems recognised the equitable notion that liability should ultimately lie with the wrongdoer. Being in the present, we can clearly observe how this concept would move on to impact the 17th and 18th century English jurists, who would see an increase in insurance disputes in their common law courts.
While the principle of subrogation was widely understood within the ambit of suretyship, in England, however, subrogation became a fundamental doctrine of insurance law. It is in the 17th and 18th century that marine and fire insurances became popular, respectively, with such popularity came conflicting issues as to whether an aggrieved person could be compensated by both the insurer as well as the negligent wrongdoer. Due to lack of proper codified laws governing the same, there was high possibility of the insured benefiting from a double recovery, by getting compensations from both the insurer and the wrongdoer. To remove such unfair practices, improvements were made by the then learned judges ensuring that the ancient Roman concept was equitably applicable in the insurance scenario.
Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, played a significant role in this development. In Mason v. Sainsbury, a case involving riot damage, Mansfield declared that “every day the insurer is put in the place of the insured; the insurer uses the name of the insured.”10 His insistence that indemnity must never result in profit gave the doctrine of subrogation a permanent home in English common law. As Marasinghe explains, Mansfield’s contribution was not technical but principled: “he sought to prevent a plaintiff from receiving a double satisfaction and to impose liability upon the party truly responsible for the loss.”11
Nineteenth-century legal principles solidified this path. The landmark ruling in Castellain v. Preston clarified that subrogation is an equitable doctrine embedded in indemnity contracts. Lord Justice Brett highlighted that “the contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity, and of indemnity only,” with subrogation serving as the means to uphold this principle.12 This case established the clear precedent that insurers, after making a payment, could assert the insured’s rights against third parties not due to contractual obligations, but because equity required it.
This rule was later codified in Section 79 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, which specifically provided that “the insurer, upon payment of a loss, is entitled to take over the rights and remedies of the assured in respect of that loss.”13 By the early 20th century, the doctrine had proceeded from being judge-made law to being a codified statute, ensuring uniformity and just practice in English insurance practice.
Indian law has adopted this principle through both legislation and judicial decisions. The Marine Insurance Act of 1963 closely resembles Section 79 of the English Act, re-establishing that insurers who compensate for losses are entitled to the rights of the insured.14 The judiciary has also thoroughly examined this doctrine. In the case of Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court initially limited the ability of insurers to pursue claims under subrogation-cum-assignment.15 However, this restrictive stance was rectified in Economic Transport Organisation v. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. In that case, the Court clarified that “subrogation is an inherent aspect of indemnity contracts and does not rely on explicit assignment,” thereby aligning Indian legal principles more closely with those of England.16
The evolution of the doctrine, from Roman cessio actionum, through Mansfield’s equitable reasoning, to its statutory recognition in England and judicial clarification in India, highlights its lasting significance.
Both English and Indian law currently recognise subrogation not merely as a contractual convenience, but as an equitable protection; it prevents double recovery, guarantees that indemnity serves as compensation rather than profit and reallocates liability to the party genuinely accountable for the loss.
TYPES OF SUBROGATION
Now before we delve deeper into the doctrine, it is important to understand the different types of subrogation at play:
Equitable subrogation- Commonly found in insurance agreements, this form of subrogation permits the insurance companies to recover the insured’s claimed sum from the third party responsible for damage. Though it is usually an unwritten agreement and the insurer can only take actions in the name of the insured, only if the insured co-
Contractual subrogation- Also referred to as conventional subrogation, this happens when the insurer takes the place of the insured and sues the party at fault after the insured has given up their rights to the insurer. If the insured chooses not to go forward with the subrogation, the insurer can initiate a lawsuit against the party responsible for the loss.
Subrogation-cum-assignment- In statutory subrogation, the insured often executes a letter of Subrogation-cum-assignment in favour of the insurer and the insurer takes legal action against the third party in their own name, without the involvement of the insured
Also, in certain circumstances the injured party and the wrongdoer come into an agreement to compensate for the damages without involving the insurance company, this is believed to be more simpler than the equitable or contractual subrogation.
SUBROGATION IN CONTEMPORARY INSURANCE LAW
Now that we have gone through the historical development of subrogation along with the types, it is necessary to understand the current implications of the doctrine in the modern scenario of insurance law. Subrogation is not just a means for the insurer to recover the amount paid by them but also a safeguard that protects the integrity of the principle of indemnity. The doctrine has developed itself through the centuries by leading precedents, laws and contractual practices along the decades of globalisation and has now become one of the most significant principles governing the current insurance law system.
1. Subrogation as the Guardian of Indemnity
Insurance contracts, apart from contingency policies such as life insurance, are contracts of indemnity. Their aim is to make the insured whole, but never to permit them to profit.
Subrogation ensures this balance is maintained. In Castellain v. Preston, Cotton L.J. made the classical observation that “the assured shall be fully indemnified, but shall never be more than fully indemnified.”17 Without subrogation, an insured who recovered both from the insurer and from a third party would be unjustly enriched, undermining the very foundation of indemnity.18
2. The Three Sides of Subrogation
Courts have identified three main situations in which subrogation operates.
Taking over the insured’s cause of action: Upon indemnification, the insurer is entitled to enforce the insured’s rights against third Brett L.J. in Castellain v. Preston explained that the insurer is “entitled to the advantage of every right of the assured.”19
Benefits received before indemnity: If the insured has already received some compensation before claiming on the policy, the insurer may deduct or adjust its liability to prevent double recovery. Cotton L.J. stressed that “everything must be taken into account which is received by and comes to the hand of the assured.”20
Benefits received after indemnity: Where the insured recovers from a third party after already being paid by the insurer, the insurer is entitled to an equitable lien on those proceeds. This was recognised in Castellain v. Preston itself, where insurers recovered from the sale proceeds of a fire-damaged property.21
Although scholars like Mitchell have argued that only the first is truly “subrogation,” English courts treat all three as practical facets of the doctrine.22
3. Equitable Roots and Contractual Flexibility
The House of Lords in Lord Napier & Ettrick v. Hunter confirmed that subrogation is rooted in equity rather than an implied contractual term.23 Nevertheless, because it arises out of indemnity contracts, parties often modify it by express agreement. Construction and commercial policies frequently waive subrogation against contractors or subcontractors to avoid circular litigation.24 Similarly, insurers regularly require a “letter of subrogation,” which operates as a formal recognition and assignment of recovery rights.25
4. Preconditions for the Right to Arise
Subrogation does not arise automatically. The insurer must first discharge its liability under the contract.26 In Page v. Scottish Insurance Corp., insurers who had not met their obligations were denied subrogation.27 However, where payment is made honestly and reasonably in good faith, even if the policy strictly does not cover the claim, courts have allowed insurers to pursue recovery, as in King v. Victoria Insurance Co. Ltd.28
Subrogation is also inapplicable to contingency contracts such as life insurance, where payment is not linked to loss and to void policies such as marine “PPI” (Plan Position Indicator) contracts under section 4 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.29
5. Procedural Control and Litigation Strategy
Since subrogation is a derivative process, legal actions must be initiated in the name of the insured. If the insured is unwilling, courts can mandate cooperation as long as the insurer covers their expenses.30 Insurance policies frequently contain “claims-control” provisions, which allow insurers to dictate litigation strategies, prevent admissions or reject settlements.31
Recent case law has further defined insurers’ rights concerning litigation funding. In the case of Sousa v. London Borough of Waltham Forest, the Court of Appeal determined that insurers are permitted to use conditional fee agreements, with defendants restricted to disputing only the reasonableness of the expenses.32
In practice, insurers have occasionally opted to abandon subrogation entirely. A prominent instance of this was the “knock-for-knock” agreements in motor insurance, where insurers consented to fulfill their own insured’s claims without pursuing recovery from one another.33
6. Derivative Nature and Built-In Limits
Subrogation never allows the insurer to claim more than the insured could. In Simpson v. Thomson, the House of Lords emphasised that insurers acquire no greater rights than the insured possessed.34 If the insured’s claim is barred, for example, by limitation or contributory negligence, the insurer’s rights also fail.35
Modern illustration can be seen in HSBC Rail v. Network Rail, where HSBC, having been fully indemnified by a lessee, had suffered no loss itself. Consequently, the insurer’s claim against Network Rail was unsuccessful.36
7. Duties of the Insured: Preserving Rights
Given the derivative nature of subrogation, courts have recognised an implied duty on insureds not to prejudice insurers’ rights. In Horwood v. Land of Leather Ltd., Teare J. confirmed that insureds must act reasonably and in good faith so as not to compromise potential subrogation claims.37 Where policies contain express claims-control clauses, unauthorised settlements by the insured can entitle the insurer to deny liability or seek damages.38
8. Insolvency and Proprietary Issues
Special issues arise when the insured becomes insolvent. In Re Ballast plc, the court ruled that insurers have a proprietary interest only in the proceeds of a recovery, not in the cause of action itself, rejecting an insurer’s claim for a vesting order.39
9. Equity’s Sensitivity and Relational Carve-Outs
As an equitable doctrine, subrogation is applied with sensitivity to broader considerations. In Morris v. Ford Motor Co. Ltd., Lord Denning refused to allow an employer to be forced to sue an employee, reasoning that industrial harmony required such risks to be absorbed by insurance rather than through subrogated litigation.40 This adaptability shows how equity can soften strict legal rights to achieve justice.
Subrogation today is fair and practical. It upholds the principle of indemnity, stops unjust enrichment, and gives insurers a clear way to recover costs. However, it is still limited by its derivative nature, follows procedural rules, however, it can adjust to business needs. Courts have improved the doctrine, making sure it remains a key part of indemnity in insurance law.
APPLICABILITY OF DOCTRINE OF SUBROGATON IN INDIA
India has adopted the interpretation of the doctrine which is quite similar to the approach of the English law. Through multiple leading judgements the courts of India have established the distinction between subrogation, assignment and subrogation-cum-assignment. While the Court in Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance41 limited the rights of the insurer to sue to only when the right was transferred by the insured to the insurer, this judgement was later on overruled by the Supreme Court the judgement of Economic Transport Organisation
Charan Spinning Mills42, where the court explaining subrogation-cum-assignment said “the choice of suing in its own name, or in the name of the assured … The insured becomes entitled to the entire amount recovered from the wrongdoer, that is, not only the amount that the insured had paid to the assured, but also any amount received in excess of what was paid by it to the assured, if the instrument so provides.”43
“In India, subrogation is recognised both contractually and by equity, backed by legal precedent and common law principles. While the Indian Contract Act, 1872 doesn’t explicitly define subrogation, courts have consistently upheld it under the doctrine of indemnity and equity.”44
But Section 79 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963,45 addresses the concept of subrogation rights. “Sub-clause (1) indicates that when an insurer compensates for a loss, whether partially or fully, the insurer is entitled solely to the portion for which compensation has been provided. The subrogated rights pertain exclusively to that specific subject matter. The insurer assumes all rights and obligations immediately upon the occurrence of the damage.
Sub-clause (2) clarifies that the insurer’s liability is limited to the portion that has been lost or damaged, excluding any items that remain insured. The insurer retains all rights and obligations concerning the damaged or lost portion. Under the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, the insured’s rights are only subrogated once the claim has been settled. The payment of the claim by the insurers is a prerequisite for this process. Subsequently, the rights are transferred to the insurers.”46
Some key legal highlights of subrogation in India:
Upon payment by the insurer, they acquire the right to recover the paid amount from the responsible third party.
Indian judiciary has clarified the role of the insurer in subrogation matters, stating that insurers are entitled to step into the shoes of the insured and exercise the rights of the insured on their behalf.
The IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2017 safeguards the equitable claims processing and transparency. Though these regulations don’t specifically define subrogation, it still plays an important role in making the insurer accountable and protecting the rights of the policyholders.
Subrogation plays a vital role in the just functioning of indemnity contracts which categorically consists of general insurance policies for vehicles, fire, marine, etc.
In India, insurers frequently secure a signed Letter of Subrogation-cum-Assignment from the insured. This document gives the insurers a legal standing by merging subrogation rights with an assignment of the claim, thus allowing the insurer to initiate actions against the third party in its own name.
PRACTICALITY OF SUBROGATION
Subrogation as a recovery option is still in its early stages in India. Although the Economic Transport Organisation decision serves as a helpful reference, insurers may encounter practical challenges when trying to achieve a subrogated recovery.
For example, the insured’s full cooperation during the recovery process is essential. This includes providing adequate support for evidentiary filings and supplying necessary documentation that the insurer needs to effectively pursue the recovery. Without this support, achieving success in a subrogated recovery action may prove challenging.
Considering the time and costs involved in initiating and pursuing an action in India, the authors believe it is important to ensure that the expected level of cooperation from the insured is satisfactory.
Critical Perspective: Economic Implications of Subrogation
Subrogation, rooted in Roman and English law, has gained attention for its economic effects. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research looked into how subrogation functions in American insurance markets, especially in health and liability insurance.47 The researchers discovered that subrogation is vital for shifting costs from insurers, who first compensate the insured, to the third parties responsible for the damage. By recouping payments from those at fault or their insurers, subrogation reduces the overall financial load on insurers, which can lead to lower premiums for policyholders.
The research also pointed out the efficiency aspect of subrogation. “By making sure that the ‘true wrongdoer’ ultimately pays, subrogation discourages carelessness and lessens the risk of moral hazard. It stops a situation where insurers and their larger group of policyholders suffer losses that should be borne by the responsible party. Thus, the economic justification for subrogation aligns with its fair legal basis: both aim for justice and the prevention of unjust enrichment.”48
The paper points out that subrogation comes with its own expenses. It can make legal processes more difficult and expensive, further it may also lead to tension between the insurer and the insured regarding the settlement value. Even though subrogation encourages fairness and efficiency, it still requires proper supervision and codified statutes to ensure that it does not disregard the security that the insurance companies are supposed to provide.
CONCLUSION
After analysing multiple sources and studies available on the doctrine of subrogation it can positively concluded that subrogation is more than a mere technicality, rather a principle that helps safeguard the integrity of indemnity. Through the various phases of both historical and contemporary interpretation of the doctrine, starting from the ancient Roman concept of cession actionum, continuing through insistent assertions of renowned English jurists, such as, Lord Mansfield, that no one shall receive ‘double satisfaction’ , and lastly precedents set by the Indian judiciary system on this matter, it can be safely assumed that the doctrine conveys a straightforward message that insurance is meant for protection and protection only, and not for unjust profit.
While researching for this assignment another facet of subrogation was revealed, the human facet. It is not only a simple hidden clause for recovery after the unfortunate event has occurred, but it also set standards ensuring that the insured is never left unprotected, that the insurer is not exploited with heavy, unfair burdens and most importantly that the wrongdoer doesn’t bypass his/her responsibilities. This equitable balance between the insurer, insured and the wrongdoer makes insurance a reliable tool in this risk-ridden, uncertain world.
Coming to the scene in India, while the Indian law has taken on the English approach on insurance principles it still faces practical problems in real-life. The continuous confusion between subrogation and assignment despite established precedents, reliance on the co- operation on the insured parties and the lengthy legal processes and delays indicate how subrogation in India often remains more theoretical than practical. However, there are valuable lessons to be learned. With codified and effective laws and regulations, better management, more awareness and implementation of the Subrogation-cum-Assignment clauses subrogation could become a more effective and sustainable tool in our system.
Ultimately, this study highlights that subrogation is not merely a theoretical concept confined to textbooks or courts; it is a vital safeguard of fairness that permeates every insurance relationship. It ensures that indemnity remains true to its commitment: to compensate, but never to profit. This assignment has sought to trace that journey, from historical roots to contemporary practice, from theory to real-world application, so that the doctrine is not only recognised in law but also valued for its purpose.
REFERENCE(S):
Law Marine Insurance Act, 1906 (UK).
Marine Insurance Act, 1963, India
Evan James MacGillivray, MacGillivray on Insurance Law (13th 2015)
Imtithal Babiker Ahmed, Some Aspects of the Doctrine of Subrogation in Insurance
John Birds, Modern Insurance Law 2
Mitch Polinsky, Subrogation and the Theory of Insurance When Suits Can Be Brought for Losses Suffered.
M L Marasinghe, An Historical Introduction to the Doctrine of Subrogation: The Early History of the Doctrine I
Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org
1 Imtithal Babiker Ahmed, Some Aspects of the Doctrine of Subrogation in Insurance Law (LLM Thesis, University of Khartoum, Apr. 2006), 4-6
2 ibid
3 John Birds, Modern Insurance Law 2 (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1988).
4 Castellain v. Preston, (1883) 11 QBD 380
5 Marine Insurance Act, 1906 (UK).
6 Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 407.
7 Economic Transport Organisation v. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 114.
8 M L Marasinghe, An Historical Introduction to the Doctrine of Subrogation: The Early History of the Doctrine I, 10 (1975).
9 Ibid.
10 Mason v. Sainsbury, (1782) 3 Dougl KB 61
11 Marasinghe, supra note 9.
12 Castellain v. Preston, (1883) 11 QBD 380
13 Marine Insurance Act, 1906, section 79 (UK).
14 Marine Insurance Act, 1963, India Code.
15 Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 407.
16 Economic Transport Org. v. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 114
17 Castellain v. Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380
18 Subrogation |, https://lawexplores.com/subrogation/ (last visited Aug. 30, 2025).
19 Castellain v. Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380 (Brett L.J)
20 Ibid ( Cotton L.J)
21 Ibid
22 Charles Mitchell, The Law Of Subrogation, pg. 15–16 (1994).
23 Lord Napier & Ettrick v. Hunter (1993) AC 713 (HL).
24 Ibid; also Evan James MacGillivray, MacGillivray on Insurance Law (13th ed. 2015).
25 Ibid; also Subrogation |, supra note 19.
26 Id.
27 Page v. Scottish Ins. Corp. (1929) 140 LT 571
28 King v. Victoria Ins. Co. Ltd. (1896) AC 250
29 Marine Insurance Act 1906, section 4; also Subrogation |, supra note 19.
30 Evan James MacGillivray, MacGillivray on Insurance Law (13th ed. 2015).
31 Subrogation |, supra note 19.
32 Sousa v. London Borough of Waltham Forest (2011) EWCA Civ 194.
33 Evan James MacGillivray, MacGillivray on Insurance Law (13th ed. 2015).
34 Simpson v. Thomson (1877) 3 App. Cas. 279 (HL)
35 Subrogation |, supra note 19.
36 HSBC Rail (UK) Ltd. v. Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1437
37 Horwood v. Land of Leather Ltd. [2010] EWHC 546 (Comm).
38 Idbi; Subrogation |, supra note 19
39 Idbi
40 Morris v. Ford Motor Co. Ltd. [1973] Q.B. 792; idbi
41 Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 407.
42 Economic Transport Organisation v. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 114.
43 Kient, India’s Doctrine of Subrogation: Evolution, Application and Practical Considerations, LAW.ASIA (Nov. 22, 2024), https://law.asia/subrogation-doctrine-india/. (last visited Aug.30, 2025)
44 Rajendra Kumar Jain, Subrogation in Insurance: What It Is and Why It’s Important, BLOG | BIMAKAVACH (Jun. 20, 2025), https://www.bimakavach.com/blog/subrogation-in-insurance-explained/. (last visited Aug. 30,
2025)
45 Marine Insurance Act, 1963 (India code)
47 Mitch Polinsky, Subrogation and the Theory of Insurance When Suits Can Be Brought for Losses Suffered, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016.
48 Id.
46 The Marine Insurance Act 1963, section 79 (India code)
