Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

risk-stops-here rule

Read a random definition: marketing defect

A quick definition of risk-stops-here rule:

The risk-stops-here rule is a principle in insurance that says an insurer cannot recover from someone whose rights are equal or better than theirs. This means that if someone else's actions are not worse than the insured's, the insurer cannot seek compensation from them. The rule also states that an insurer can only use subrogation against someone whose actions are worse than the insured's.

A more thorough explanation:

The risk-stops-here rule is a principle in insurance that states an insurer cannot recover from anyone whose equities are equal or superior to the insurer's. This means that if someone else's rights or interests are just as important as the insurer's, the insurer cannot take legal action against them to recover any losses.

For example, let's say a person's car is damaged in an accident caused by another driver. The person's insurance company pays for the repairs and then seeks to recover the costs from the other driver's insurance company through subrogation. However, if the other driver's insurance company can prove that their client was not at fault or that their client's rights are equal or superior to the person's insurance company, the risk-stops-here rule would prevent the person's insurance company from recovering any costs.

The risk-stops-here rule is based on the doctrine of superior equities, which means that the rights of one party cannot be superior to the rights of another party. This principle ensures that all parties are treated fairly and that no one is unfairly disadvantaged.

risk of nonpersuasion | risk-utility test

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.