Legal Definitions - single-recovery rule

The single-recovery rule, also known as the one-satisfaction rule, is a fundamental legal principle that prevents an injured party from recovering more than the full amount of their actual damages for a single injury or loss. This means that regardless of how many individuals or entities might be responsible for the harm, or how many different legal claims are brought, the injured party is entitled to only one complete compensation for the same specific harm. The purpose is to ensure the injured party is made whole, but not to allow them to profit from their injury by receiving multiple payments for the exact same loss.

Here are some examples to illustrate this rule:

• Multiple Responsible Parties: Imagine a scenario where a pedestrian is severely injured after being struck by a car. The driver of the car was intoxicated, and the car's brakes had recently been serviced by a mechanic who performed the work negligently. The pedestrian suffers $150,000 in medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The pedestrian sues both the intoxicated driver and the negligent mechanic. A jury finds both parties liable for the pedestrian's injuries and awards $150,000 in total damages.

  How it illustrates the rule: Even though two different parties (the driver and the mechanic) are found responsible for the pedestrian's injuries, the pedestrian can only collect a total of $150,000. If the driver pays $100,000, the mechanic would only be responsible for the remaining $50,000. The pedestrian cannot collect $150,000 from the driver *and* another $150,000 from the mechanic for the same set of injuries, as that would result in a double recovery.

• Insurance Payments and Lawsuits: A homeowner's property is damaged by a burst pipe, causing $30,000 in repair costs and damage to personal belongings. The homeowner files a claim with their insurance company, which promptly pays the full $30,000 to cover the repairs and replacement of damaged items. Later, the homeowner discovers the pipe burst due to a faulty installation by a plumbing company a year prior and considers suing the plumbing company.

  How it illustrates the rule: Since the homeowner has already received $30,000 from their insurance company to cover the specific damages from the burst pipe, they cannot then sue the plumbing company and recover another $30,000 for the *exact same* repair costs and damaged items. The insurance payment has already satisfied their loss for that particular damage. While the insurance company might have a right to pursue the plumbing company to recover the money it paid (a process called subrogation), the homeowner themselves cannot receive a second payment for the same loss.

• Different Legal Theories for the Same Harm: A small business enters into a contract with a marketing firm to launch a new product. The marketing firm fails to deliver on its promises, resulting in significant financial losses for the business, including $200,000 in lost profits and wasted advertising expenses. The business sues the marketing firm, alleging both a breach of contract (for not fulfilling the agreement) and fraudulent misrepresentation (for making false promises about their services). Both claims seek to recover the same $200,000 in financial losses.

  How it illustrates the rule: Despite bringing two distinct legal claims (breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation), both claims are based on the same underlying harm – the financial losses incurred due to the failed marketing campaign. The single-recovery rule dictates that the business can only recover a total of $200,000 for these losses, not $200,000 for the contract breach *and* another $200,000 for the fraudulent misrepresentation. The court will ensure that the total compensation awarded does not exceed the actual, proven damages for the single economic harm suffered.