Skip to content

Vehicle impact

Domain guide, Property subrogation, theory 3.8

The theory

A driver strikes the insured building. The driver, and the driver's liability insurer, are the recovery target. The vehicle owner and the driver's employer may also be liable, but only on facts of ownership or employment, which must be confirmed before either is named in a demand.

Who must be on the roster

  • other_driver (the primary and only confirmed target of this theory). vehicle_owner and employer, when present and identified, each add a routine condition naming them - the engine does not confirm either as a target from this theory alone.

Facts that establish it

  • cause_attribution_to_party (required): the impact must be attributed to the named driver.

What defeats it

  • A lease or contract waiver of subrogation (PROP-SUBRO-DEF-001), where one exists.
  • The property-damage limitation period (PROP-SUBRO-DEF-002).
  • An act of God, such as a mechanical failure or road hazard entirely outside the driver's control, stated as the sole cause (PROP-SUBRO-DEF-004).
  • Michigan: no-fault abolishes most tort liability for vehicle-caused property damage. Recovery runs through the at-fault driver's insurer's property protection benefits (MCL 500.3121, 500.3135), not a liability demand against the driver, and must be claimed within one year of the loss (MCL 500.3145).
  • No comparative-fault gate exists for this theory today - PROPERTY has no fault-rule gate at all (AUTO-only). The adjuster applies the state's own comparative-fault rule manually until one is built.

Recovery channel

  • Demand letter to the driver's liability insurer, read from the party's own insurer field.
  • Michigan: not a tort demand - a property protection insurance (PPI) claim against the vehicle insurer instead.

What the carrier does

  • Identify the driver's liability insurer.
  • Where a vehicle owner or employer is also named, confirm ownership or employment before adding either to the demand - their presence on the roster is not, by itself, a confirmed basis to name them.
  • Where the driver or employer also holds a government role (governmental_entity or municipality), treat the government notice deadline as live even though this theory does not yet apply that gate automatically - see the reading note below.
  • Confirm the state before assuming an ordinary tort demand; Michigan redirects the claim entirely.

A claim that fits

A delivery van driven by Marcus Webb left the roadway and struck the loading dock of the insured's warehouse in Texas. Webb is named with his own liability insurer. Coastal Linen Service, Webb's employer, is also named in the file, though whether the trip was within the scope of his employment is not yet confirmed.

How the engine reads itOther-driver on the roster; cause attributed to Webb, which is required. Vehicle-impact confirmed, refer, demand letter to Webb's liability insurer. Because Coastal Linen Service is on the roster with an identified name and role employer, the engine adds a routine condition naming Coastal Linen Service as a possible additional target - it does not confirm Coastal Linen Service itself. In Texas, with no Michigan no-fault redirect and no government role on either party, no further condition fires.

Records behind it

Theory record PROP-SUBRO-THEORY-008 Defenses PROP-SUBRO-DEF-001, PROP-SUBRO-DEF-002, PROP-SUBRO-DEF-004

Check yourself