(164) In order to enforce a right in equitable subrogation the subrogee does not necessarily have to communicate with the subrogor or have the opportunity to control any claim the subrogor is pursuing or could pursue.
There is, however, a subset of subrogation rights that involve either the actual control or potential control of the subrogor's tort claims by the subrogee. These are subrogation rights that arise through first-party insurance contracts.
A few of the distinctions are: subrogation secures contribution and indemnity, whereas assignment transfers the entire claim; the consideration in subrogation moves from subrogor to subrogee, whereas in an assignment the consideration flows from assignee to assignor; assignment contemplates the assignee being a volunteer, whereas subrogation rests on a contractual duty to pay; assignment normally covers but a single claim, whereas subrogation may include a number of claims over a specific period of time; subrogation entails a substitution, whereas assignment is an outright transfer.
I, therefore, feel that once a vessel reaches the port with the cargo and delivery order is issued by the ship agent the actual identity of the carrier becomes irrelevant in so far as the Consignee/ Subrogee
The court reasoned that the principle of subrogation is limited where the insurer seeks a claim in subrogation against its own insured; the anti-subrogation rule -- that an insurer cannot be a subrogee
against its insured on the very claim for which the insured was covered -- seeks to avoid conflicts of interest that would undercut the insurer's incentive to vigorously defend its insured's claims.
If the responsible parties can be put on notice before the destruction of the fire scene, the subrogee will not be put in the position of defending whether destruction of the fire scene was within its control or contained relevant evidence.
The subrogee should entrust the evidence only to those who appreciate the significance of the materials.
No matter whether a jurisdiction recognizes the distinction between design and manufacturing defects, the subrogee is always well advised in preserving as much as reasonably possible.
However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, distinguishing Atlantic on the basis that the case concerned a private party that had "itself incurred cleanup costs." (53) Instead, the Ninth Circuit held that "simply stepping into the shoes of the insured via reimbursement" does not render a subrogee
liable for response costs.