What is the make-whole doctrine in Connecticut?

The make-whole doctrine is Connecticut's default rule that an insurer generally cannot enforce its subrogation right until its insured, meaning the person the policy covers, has been fully compensated for the loss. It applies when the insured's total loss exceeds the insurer's payment, the available recovery cannot fully compensate both the insured and insurer, and the policy does not expressly change the rule. Contract, statutory, or regulatory language can lead to a different result.

Subrogation means that after an insurer pays for a loss caused by someone else, the insurer can step into its insured's shoes and recover what it paid from the person at fault or that person's insurer. The right prevents an insured from being paid twice for the same loss, but the make-whole doctrine can affect who has priority when there is not enough money for everyone.

Can my insurance company take the settlement money from the other driver?

Usually yes. After paying your claim, your insurer has a subrogation right, meaning it can recover what it paid from the at-fault driver or that driver's insurer. In Connecticut, however, the make-whole doctrine generally does not let your insurer enforce that right until you have been fully compensated for your loss. When the available insurance cannot cover both your remaining loss and the insurer's claim, the default rule gives you first claim to the money, unless the policy or other governing law changes it.

Can I sue my own insurer for taking limited property-damage proceeds?

A claim may be possible, but Orlando v. Liburd did not decide whether the insurer ultimately violated the make-whole doctrine or owed money. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the insured's claim was not premature and that he had standing, meaning the legal right to pursue it, without first obtaining a judgment against the other driver. The facts, policy language, payments, and available coverage still need to be reviewed.

Why does the make-whole rule matter when the other driver has low property-damage limits?

Limited property-damage coverage creates a fixed pool of insurance money. If the injured car owner's uncompensated loss and the insurer's subrogation claim exceed that pool, every dollar paid to the insurer is a dollar no longer available for the owner's remaining vehicle loss. Orlando involved a $25,000 property-damage limit, diminished value, and loss of use, not a bodily-injury settlement.

Did the driver in Orlando v. Liburd win money from his insurer?

No. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and allowed the unjust enrichment claim to continue. It did not decide whether the complaint was legally sufficient on the merits or whether the insured would recover money. As of August 5, 2026, the public trial-court docket showed the case still pending.

New Haven Auto Accident Attorney · August 7, 2026

When Your Own Insurance Company Jumps The Line: Connecticut's Make-Whole Rule

Connecticut's make-whole doctrine may give a policyholder first claim to limited property-damage proceeds before their own insurance company recovers what it paid.

By Richard T. LoRicco, Esq.

You pick up your car from a repair shop off Whalley Avenue in New Haven. The bodywork has been paid for, but the car is worth less than it was before the crash, and you spent weeks paying for a rental. Then you learn that the other driver's insurer sent its entire property-damage limit to your own insurance company to cover what it had paid. Nothing remains from that policy for the losses you still claim.

Connecticut's make-whole doctrine may affect who gets that limited insurance money first. The rule generally gives you, not your insurance company, first claim to that money, but it is a default rule, not an absolute one. The amount of the loss, the available coverage, and the language of the policy all matter.

A 2026 Connecticut Supreme Court decision explains why that order of payment can become the center of a property-damage case.

Subrogation Is How An Insurer Recovers What It Paid

When your insurer pays for damage caused by someone else, it can usually recover what it paid from the person at fault or that person's insurer. That right is called subrogation.

Two words from insurance law will keep coming up. The insurer is the insurance company. The insured is the person the policy protects. In this situation, that is you.

Subrogation places the financial responsibility on the person who caused the loss and prevents an insured from collecting twice for the same damage. A dispute begins, however, when the money available from the at-fault side cannot pay both the insured's remaining loss and the insurer's subrogation claim.

Suppose your insurer pays $18,000 to repair your car. You also claim $12,000 for the car's diminished value and the cost of a rental, while the at-fault driver's property-damage policy has only $25,000 available. If your insurer takes $18,000 from that policy first, only $7,000 remains for the $12,000 loss you still claim. A different allocation may be required if the make-whole doctrine applies.

Connecticut's Default Rule Generally Puts The Insured First

In Orlando v. Liburd, the Connecticut Supreme Court described the make-whole doctrine as a default rule in insurance contracts. In plain terms, an insurer generally may not enforce its subrogation rights until its insured has been fully compensated for the loss.

The court identified three conditions for the doctrine to apply:

The insured's total loss exceeds the amount paid by the insurer.
The available sources of recovery cannot fully compensate both the insured and the insurer.
The insurance policy is silent about changing the default rule.

The third condition matters because an insurance contract can expressly provide a different priority, and statutory or regulatory language can also change the analysis. You cannot decide a make-whole issue from the settlement check alone. The policy has to be read.

One caution about deductibles: for deciding who gets paid first, Connecticut treats you as fully compensated once you recover your full loss minus the deductible you agreed to pay. That does not mean the deductible disappears. You may still be able to recover it from the at-fault driver.

What Happened In Orlando v. Liburd

The case began with a November 2018 collision. Rocco Orlando's insurer, Nationwide, paid to repair his vehicle. Orlando then sued the other driver, Ernest Liburd, and sought damages that included the car's diminished value and his rental expenses.

According to the allegations reviewed by the court, Liburd's insurer paid $25,000 to Nationwide after an arbitration process between the two insurers. That payment used up the full property-damage limit under Liburd's policy. The complaint alleged that Nationwide accepted the money based on a representation that Orlando had been made whole, even though Orlando still claimed losses for diminished value and loss of use.

Those are allegations, not findings that Nationwide acted wrongfully.

Orlando brought an unjust enrichment claim against Nationwide, a type of claim that says one side received a benefit it would be unfair to keep without paying the other. He argued that the make-whole doctrine gave him a superior right to the limited property-damage coverage and that Nationwide had collected it too soon. The trial court dismissed that claim as unripe, meaning it was filed too early. The Appellate Court affirmed, reasoning that Orlando first had to obtain a judgment against Liburd and determine whether Liburd could pay it.

The Supreme Court Allowed The Claim To Proceed

The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed. It held that Orlando's unjust enrichment claim was ripe and that he had standing, meaning the legal right to bring the claim, without first winning a judgment against Liburd or exhausting efforts to collect from him.

The court focused on the alleged loss of priority. Nationwide's $25,000 recovery had already used up the property-damage coverage that might otherwise have been available for Orlando's claimed diminished-value and loss-of-use damages. Requiring him to pursue the other driver's personal assets before challenging that allocation would place the risk of a shortfall on the insured, which is the result the default make-whole rule is intended to prevent.

The ruling did not decide that Nationwide violated the doctrine. It did not decide whether Orlando's unjust enrichment count was legally sufficient on the merits, and it did not award him money. The court restored the claim and sent the case back for further proceedings.

That distinction still matters. The public Hartford Superior Court docket, as checked on August 5, 2026, shows no final decision. It records additional pleadings after the remand and currently lists jury selection for October 22, 2026.

This Was A Property-Damage Case

The $25,000 at issue in Orlando was the other driver's property-damage limit. The uncompensated losses described by the court were the vehicle's claimed diminished value and loss of use. The decision was not about a $25,000 bodily-injury settlement.

Diminished value is the difference between what a vehicle was worth before a crash and what it is worth after a proper repair. Loss of use can include the reasonable value of being deprived of the vehicle while it is being repaired. Whether those damages exist, and how much they are worth, requires proof.

Repair records, photographs, rental receipts, appraisals, and the vehicle's pre-crash condition can all matter. The insurer's payment history and subrogation records matter too. The legally recoverable vehicle loss can extend beyond what the repair shop charged.

Three Signs That The Order Of Payment Needs Review

A make-whole question may be present when three things appear together: your insurer sends a subrogation notice, the at-fault driver's property-damage coverage is too small to cover every claimed loss, and settlement or release paperwork discusses reimbursement or the allocation of insurance proceeds.

If that happens, ask your insurer what it has claimed, collected, or agreed to release. Request a complete copy of your policy and the payment history. Keep the repair estimate, photographs, rental records, appraisal, correspondence, and any document that describes how the limited coverage was divided.

Do not sign a release or approve an allocation you do not understand. While subrogation is a normal part of insurance, that does not answer who has priority when the available money is insufficient.

If Limited Property-Damage Proceeds Were Paid Before Your Vehicle Loss Was Resolved

An insurer's subrogation recovery does not automatically mean it violated Connecticut law. The make-whole doctrine applies only when its conditions are met, and clear policy language may change the default priority. The first step is to reconstruct the loss, the available coverage, and every payment.

Our New Haven auto accident attorneys can review the policy, the repair and rental records, the subrogation activity, and the available property-damage coverage. For a broader account of the records to preserve after a collision, see our guide to what to do after a Connecticut holiday accident.

Contact our office for a free consultation. We can explain which payments were made, who received them, and what questions the make-whole doctrine raises in your case.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the make-whole doctrine in Connecticut?: The make-whole doctrine is Connecticut's default rule that an insurer generally cannot enforce its subrogation right until its insured, meaning the person the policy covers, has been fully compensated for the loss. It applies when the insured's total loss exceeds the insurer's payment, the available recovery cannot fully compensate both the insured and insurer, and the policy does not expressly change the rule. Contract, statutory, or regulatory language can lead to a different result.
What is subrogation?: Subrogation means that after an insurer pays for a loss caused by someone else, the insurer can step into its insured's shoes and recover what it paid from the person at fault or that person's insurer. The right prevents an insured from being paid twice for the same loss, but the make-whole doctrine can affect who has priority when there is not enough money for everyone.
Can my insurance company take the settlement money from the other driver?: Usually yes. After paying your claim, your insurer has a subrogation right, meaning it can recover what it paid from the at-fault driver or that driver's insurer. In Connecticut, however, the make-whole doctrine generally does not let your insurer enforce that right until you have been fully compensated for your loss. When the available insurance cannot cover both your remaining loss and the insurer's claim, the default rule gives you first claim to the money, unless the policy or other governing law changes it.
Can I sue my own insurer for taking limited property-damage proceeds?: A claim may be possible, but Orlando v. Liburd did not decide whether the insurer ultimately violated the make-whole doctrine or owed money. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the insured's claim was not premature and that he had standing, meaning the legal right to pursue it, without first obtaining a judgment against the other driver. The facts, policy language, payments, and available coverage still need to be reviewed.
Why does the make-whole rule matter when the other driver has low property-damage limits?: Limited property-damage coverage creates a fixed pool of insurance money. If the injured car owner's uncompensated loss and the insurer's subrogation claim exceed that pool, every dollar paid to the insurer is a dollar no longer available for the owner's remaining vehicle loss. Orlando involved a $25,000 property-damage limit, diminished value, and loss of use, not a bodily-injury settlement.
Did the driver in Orlando v. Liburd win money from his insurer?: No. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and allowed the unjust enrichment claim to continue. It did not decide whether the complaint was legally sufficient on the merits or whether the insured would recover money. As of August 5, 2026, the public trial-court docket showed the case still pending.