Allstate Insurance Company v. Stephen Palumbo — Rogers, J., concurring

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the trial court improperly failed to exercise its equitable discretion by balancing the equities relevant to the insurer’s subrogation claim. It would not have the appellate court conduct that balancing itself, because the majority and dissent’s opposing but plausible assessments demonstrate that the trial court has room to exercise discretion on remand. Rogers, C. J., concurring, would reverse the Appellate Court and remand for the trial court to balance the equities subject to abuse-of-discretion review; Zarella, J., dissenting, would instead affirm the Appellate Court because the equities allegedly compelled allowing the subrogation action to proceed.