Here is an Indiana Case in which the concept of equitable subrogation is attempted in a legal malpractice case.  Here, insurer seeking equitable subrogation loses. In Queerey & Harrow LTD v. Transcontinental Ins. Co. two hurdles face the insurer:  privity and policy.  Attorney represents insured, and not carrier, much less the more distant excess carrier.  The Indiana Supreme Court holds that there is not a sufficient relationship between the attorneys and the excess carrier.

The second hurdle is policy.  Here the Supreme Court values the "obligations’ of loyalty and client confidentiality over the right of a carrier to re-coup its [unnecessary?] losses.