“Subrogation arises when one party (the subrogee) indemnifies or pays the principal debtor’s obligation to the creditor or claimant (the subrogor).”
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. AMZ Insurance Services, Inc.,188 Cal. App. 4th 401, 432 (2010).
“One who claims to be equitably subrogated to the rights of a secured creditor must satisfy certain prerequisites. These are:
‘(1) Payment must have been made by the subrogee to protect his own interest;
(2) The subrogee must not have acted as a volunteer;
(3) The debt paid must be one for which the subrogee was not primarily liable;
(4) The entire debt must have been paid; [and]
(5) Subrogation must not work any injustice to the rights of others.’”
Caito v. United Cal. Bank, 20 Cal. 3d 694, 704 (1978).
“The essential elements of an insurer’s cause of action for equitable subrogation are as follows:
 the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer;
 the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable;
 the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is primarily liable;
 the insurer has paid the claim of its insured to protect its own interest and not as a volunteer;
 the insured has an existing, assignable cause of action against the defendant which the insured could have asserted for its own benefit had it not been compensated for its loss by the insurer;
 the insurer has suffered damages caused by the act or omission upon which the liability of the defendant depends;
 justice requires that the loss be entirely shifted from the insurer to the defendant, whose equitable position is inferior to that of the insurer; and
 the insurer’s damages are in a liquidated sum, generally the amount paid to the insured.”
Interstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Wrecking Co., 182 Cal. App. 4th 23, 33-34 (2010).
CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS
California Supreme Court:Caito v. United Cal. Bank, 20 Cal. 3d 694, 704 (1978).
California 1st Dist.: Interstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Wrecking Co., 182 Cal. App. 4th 23, 33-34 (2010).
California 2d Dist.:American Contractors Indem. Co. v. Saladino, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1262, 1268 (2004); see RLI Ins. Co. v. CNA Casualty of California, 141 Cal. App. 4th 75, 80 (2006) (re subrogation as between excess and primary insurers).
California 3d Dist.: Dobbas v. Vitas, 191 Cal. App. 4th 809, 817 (2011).
California 4th Dist.: American Safety Indemnity Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 220 Cal. App. 4th 1, 8 (2013).
California 5th Dist.: Essex Ins. Co. v. Heck, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1522-23 (2010).
California 6th Dist.: None.
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS
United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: Taxel v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In re Deuel), 361 B.R. 509, 517-18 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying California law); Bevan v. Socal Communications Sites, LLC (In re Bevan), 327 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2003) (9th Circuit standard).
Central District:Salessi v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., No. SA CV 08-01274-DOC (JPRx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149766, at *19-20 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2013).
Eastern District: CUMIS Ins. Society, Inc. v. Gonzalez, No. 1:12-cv-01916 AWI BAM, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85381, at *7 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2013).
Northern District: United States v. Moyer, No: C 07-00510 SBA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112909, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2011).
Southern District: Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.,No. 11-cv-0624 BEN (NLS), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78371, at *12-13 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2011).