NCJ Number
98582
Date Published
1980
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This paper explores legal issues involved in paying restitution to insurance companies that have compensated crime victims for losses suffered from a crime, focusing on legal issues in the insurance company's interaction with the victim, the offender, and the courts.
Abstract
Appellate courts have generally ruled that the insured (victim) is to be reimbursed by restitution of losses not covered by insurance; the insurer is then entitled to the remaining balance up to the amount paid out on the claim. In some jurisdictions, the insurer is entitled to reimbursement out of the recovery from the third party (offender), and the insured (victim) is entitled to any remaining balance. In other jurisdictions, the recovery from the offender is to be prorated between the insurer and the insured in accordance with the percentage of the original loss paid by the insurer under the policy. Courts in some States, however, will not order restitution payments to insurance companies for various legal and philosophical reasons. Regarding legal issues in the insurance company's interaction with the offender, it is possible under subrogation law that the offender could be liable for civil damages to the insurance company. There is no statutory scheme which gives a crime victim or an insurance company a right to receive restitution from an offender. Appellate courts have reached different conclusions on the issue of whether a court may order an offender to pay restitution to an insurance company. The concluding section of the paper discusses whether restitution is less likely to achieve the goals of punishmen, rehabilitation, and compensation if restitution payments are made to insurance companies rather than directly to victims. Twenty-two footnotes are provided.