State guide · Northeast
District of Columbia subrogation law guide
Any contributory negligence by the insured bars a negligence recovery in most cases. Pedestrians and vulnerable road users such as cyclists and scooter riders are barred only if their negligence is greater than the combined negligence of the defendants (D.C. Code 50-2204.52).
District of Columbia at a glanceDC
- Property damage
- 3 years
- Bodily injury
- 3 years
- Fault rule
- Pure contributory
- Gov. notice
- 180 days
Overview
The District of Columbia is one of the few remaining contributory negligence jurisdictions, and that single rule dominates its subrogation files. If the insured driver was even slightly negligent, a collision recovery fails unless the last clear chance doctrine applies. The Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act of 2016 and its 2020 amendment soften the rule for pedestrians and vulnerable users such as cyclists and scooter riders, who are barred only when their negligence exceeds the defendants' combined negligence, which matters for medical payments and injury recoveries but rarely for a motorist's collision claim. The deadlines are simple: three years for property damage, bodily injury and contract claims under D.C. Code 12-301. Claims against the District itself require written notice to the Mayor within six months under 12-309. Joint and several liability survives, so once liability is established the carrier can collect the full judgment from any responsible defendant. The made-whole doctrine is a default rule that clear policy language can override, and Aguilar limits recovery of purely economic loss. Dense commercial real estate makes water, fire and construction losses a large share of District recoveries, and lease waivers decide many of them.
Quick reference with citations
- Property damage SOL
- 3 years
- D.C. Code 12-301(3) (injury to real or personal property)
- Bodily injury SOL
- 3 years
- D.C. Code 12-301(8)
- Product liability
- 3 years (D.C. Code 12-301); no product statute of repose; 4 years for UCC warranty claims (D.C. Code 28:2-725); 10-year construction repose from substantial completion of an improvement to real property (D.C. Code 12-310)
- Written contract
- 3 years
- Contract and indemnity recoveries
- Comparative fault rule
- Pure contributory
- Wingfield v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc., 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977); D.C. Code 50-2204.52 (pedestrians and vulnerable users)
- Government notice of claim
- 180 days
- No action for unliquidated damages to person or property may be maintained against the District unless written notice is given to the Mayor within 6 months after the injury or damage, stating the approximate time, place, cause and circumstances (D.C. Code 12-309). A police report prepared in the regular course of duty can satisfy the requirement only if it contains that information, so send a written notice in every case. The notice requirement does not extend the 3-year limitation period.
Fault rule in practice
How District of Columbia's rule changes a $50,000 recovery.
Any contributory negligence by the insured bars a negligence recovery in most cases. Pedestrians and vulnerable road users such as cyclists and scooter riders are barred only if their negligence is greater than the combined negligence of the defendants (D.C. Code 50-2204.52).
Authority: Wingfield v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc., 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977); D.C. Code 50-2204.52 (pedestrians and vulnerable users)
| Insured's share of fault | Recoverable in DC | Under pure comparative |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | $50,000 | $50,000 |
| 20% | Barred | $40,000 |
| 50% | Barred | $25,000 |
| 60% | Barred | $20,000 |
Doctrines that move the number
District of Columbia doctrine checklist.
Made-whole doctrine
The D.C. Court of Appeals treats the made-whole doctrine as a default rule: an insurer that paid less than the full loss cannot take from a third-party recovery until the insured is compensated, but the parties can contract around the rule with sufficiently clear policy language (District No. 1-Pacific Coast District, MEBA v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., 782 A.2d 269 (D.C. 2001)).
Economic loss doctrine
Aguilar v. RP MRP Washington Harbour, LLC, 98 A.3d 979 (D.C. 2014) held that purely economic losses are not recoverable in negligence absent physical injury or a special relationship, rejecting lost wage claims by workers whose employers closed after a flood. Physical damage to the insured's own property remains recoverable in tort.
Joint and several liability
The District retains joint and several liability, so a carrier can collect its full judgment from any liable defendant. Contribution among joint tortfeasors is shared pro rata, and a non-settling defendant receives a pro rata credit for a settling joint tortfeasor whose liability is established by adjudication or stipulation.
Anti-subrogation and waiver
The D.C. Court of Appeals has not issued a leading anti-subrogation decision, so carriers should assume the general rule applies: no subrogation against a named or additional insured for a covered loss. Commercial leases often contain mutual waivers of subrogation, so review the lease before pursuing a tenant or landlord.
Practice notes
Working District of Columbia subrogation files.
- 1
Contributory negligence makes the liability review the first and most important step. If a carrier pays $26,000 after a rear-end collision on Connecticut Avenue and the defense shows the insured stopped abruptly without reason, even a small share of fault ends the claim. Look for last clear chance facts, where the defendant had time to avoid a collision the insured could not, before writing off a file with mixed liability.
- 2
Send the D.C. Code 12-309 notice to the Mayor within six months of any loss involving a District vehicle, water main, tree, pothole or public building. The notice must give the approximate time, place, cause and circumstances. Do not rely on a police report to satisfy the statute, and remember the notice is a precondition, not an extension: suit is still due within three years of the loss.
- 3
The vulnerable user statute changes the math when the insured is the pedestrian or cyclist. A medical payments carrier that pays $9,000 for an insured cyclist struck by a delivery van can recover even if the cyclist was 30% at fault, as long as that share is not greater than the defendants' combined negligence. A motorist insured struck by the same van gets no such protection and is barred by any proven fault.
- 4
Joint and several liability rewards naming every responsible party. In a condominium water loss caused by a failed sprinkler head, a plumbing contractor and a property manager, the carrier can collect the whole judgment from whichever defendant is insured and solvent. Contribution among defendants is pro rata, so a settlement with one defendant should be structured with the pro rata credit rules in mind.
- 5
Ishqkala scores District files with the contributory rule applied, so any narrative indicator of insured fault lowers win probability sharply and sends the file to counsel review rather than an automatic demand. When the insured was a pedestrian, cyclist or scooter rider, the model switches to the vulnerable user standard, and any District vehicle or property in the notes opens a six-month 12-309 clock.
Key cases
Wingfield v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc.
379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977)
The D.C. Court of Appeals declined to abandon contributory negligence in favor of comparative fault. Any proven negligence by the insured remains a complete defense to a subrogation claim outside the vulnerable user statute.
District No. 1-Pacific Coast District, MEBA v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.
782 A.2d 269 (D.C. 2001)
Described the made-whole doctrine as a default rule that clear contract language can displace. Policy wording controls priority between the carrier and the insured in the District.
Aguilar v. RP MRP Washington Harbour, LLC
98 A.3d 979 (D.C. 2014)
Barred negligence claims for purely economic loss absent physical injury or a special relationship. Business income and lost wage components of a subrogation claim need a physical damage anchor.
Inter-company arbitration
Arbitration Forums panels work within District law, so contributory negligence is a complete defense in auto and property filings, and respondents raise it whenever the facts allow. Signatory carriers must arbitrate company-paid damages up to $100,000 in the Automobile and Property forums. Arbitration is efficient for clear-liability rear-end and parked-car claims, but a file with disputed insured conduct should be evaluated as carefully in AF as it would be in Superior Court.
How Ishqkala applies this guide
DC rules, built into every score.
- Opportunities with a District of Columbia loss state are calendared against the 3 years property damage period or the 3 years bodily injury period, whichever controls the claim type.
- The insured's estimated fault share is applied under pure contributory before recoverable dollars are scored.
- Files involving a public entity get a 180-day notice deadline that outranks the general SOL in the priority queue.
- Alerts fire at 180, 90, 45 and 15 days before the controlling deadline.
FAQ
District of Columbia subrogation FAQ
3 years (D.C. Code 12-301(3) (injury to real or personal property)). A subrogating carrier generally takes the insured's claim subject to the same limitation period, usually measured from the date of loss.
Pure contributory (Wingfield v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc., 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977); D.C. Code 50-2204.52 (pedestrians and vulnerable users)). Any contributory negligence by the insured bars a negligence recovery in most cases. Pedestrians and vulnerable road users such as cyclists and scooter riders are barred only if their negligence is greater than the combined negligence of the defendants (D.C. Code 50-2204.52).
No action for unliquidated damages to person or property may be maintained against the District unless written notice is given to the Mayor within 6 months after the injury or damage, stating the approximate time, place, cause and circumstances (D.C. Code 12-309). A police report prepared in the regular course of duty can satisfy the requirement only if it contains that information, so send a written notice in every case. The notice requirement does not extend the 3-year limitation period.
The D.C. Court of Appeals treats the made-whole doctrine as a default rule: an insurer that paid less than the full loss cannot take from a third-party recovery until the insured is compensated, but the parties can contract around the rule with sufficiently clear policy language (District No. 1-Pacific Coast District, MEBA v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., 782 A.2d 269 (D.C. 2001)).
Find the millions hiding in your closed claim files before the Statute of Limitations expires.
We'll scan a batch of 500 closed claims for free and deliver an itemized recovery manifest within 5 business days.