⚖Subrogation in Victim Cases

We at The Resilence Foundation (TRF) do not believe anyone EXCEPT THE VICTIM should recover restitution and/or damages.

On a rare occasion, a handful of perpetrators (such as licensed professionals) may have the financial ability to pay restitution and/or damages to a victim(s) by way of professional liability insurance and/or other assets. We at TRF believe that in victimization civil related cases, subrogation should NOT be allowed.

Instead, TRF would convert the subrogated party (for example: MediCal, Rawlings, and/or insurance companies) into a co-Plaintiff, thus allowing them to be a direct Plaintiff so that as co-Plaintiffs these entities may seek their own recovery settlement and/or jury verdict as reimbursement.


Why should the victim have to pay money back to a subrogating company from their settlement IF the third party case relates to a crime. It seems unjust and further victimizes the innocent individual.

TRF plans to reform laws and change legislation for the betterment of victim civil restitution cases. After all, what “damages” or “injuries” did the subrogating company suffer?

What we are saying is, why not reform law so that these entities (be it health insurance companies or government entities) open their own cases for “expenses” aka “damages” as a co-Plaintiff part within any civil-criminal restitution lawsuit, considering these are victim-related cases. Seems wrong to take from the victim. Why not fight alongside the victim against the perpetrator? The chances of a better verdict outcome increase and each party is paid their own settlement (so-to-speak).

%d bloggers like this: