
Insights from recent episode analysis
Audience Interest
Podcast Focus
Publishing Consistency
Platform Reach
Insights are generated by CastFox AI using publicly available data, episode content, and proprietary models.
Most discussed topics
Brands & references
Est. Listeners
Insufficient chart data. Estimates will improve as the show charts.
- Per-Episode Audience
Est. listeners per new episode within ~30 days
N/A🎙 ~2x weekly·100 episodes·Last published 1w ago - Monthly Reach
Unique listeners across all episodes (30 days)
N/A - Active Followers
Loyal subscribers who consistently listen
N/A
Market Insights
Platform Distribution
Reach across major podcast platforms, updated hourly
Total Followers
—
Total Plays
—
Total Reviews
—
* Data sourced directly from platform APIs and aggregated hourly across all major podcast directories.
On the show
From 13 epsHosts
Recent guests
Recent episodes
Distracted Driving
Jun 12, 2026
1h 02m 39s
Refresh: Common Fund Doctrine- Sharing the Cost
May 29, 2026
33m 50s
Subpoena-ing Social Media Companies
May 15, 2026
46m 58s
Refresh: Post-Judgment Executions: How to Secure Your Recovery After Judgment
May 1, 2026
45m 01s
Mediation as Therapy for Your Claim
Apr 17, 2026
59m 50s
Social Links & Contact
Official channels & resources
Official Website
Login
RSS Feed
Login
| Date | Episode | Topics | Guests | Brands | Places | Keywords | Sponsor | Length | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/12/26 | ![]() Distracted Driving✨ | distracted drivingsubrogation claims+3 | — | Rathbone Group, LLC | — | distracted drivingsubrogation+3 | — | 1h 02m 39s | |
| 5/29/26 | ![]() Refresh: Common Fund Doctrine- Sharing the Cost✨ | Common Fund Doctrinesubrogation+3 | Jason Sullivan | Rathbone Group, LLC | — | Common Fund Doctrinesubrogation recovery+3 | — | 33m 50s | |
| 5/15/26 | ![]() Subpoena-ing Social Media Companies✨ | subpoenassocial media+4 | — | Stored Communications Actsocial media companies+1 | — | subpoenasocial media+5 | — | 46m 58s | |
| 5/1/26 | ![]() Refresh: Post-Judgment Executions: How to Secure Your Recovery After Judgment✨ | Post-Judgment ExecutionsSecuring Recovery+3 | — | — | — | Post-Judgment ExecutionsRecovery+5 | — | 45m 01s | |
| 4/17/26 | ![]() Mediation as Therapy for Your Claim✨ | mediationsubrogation+3 | Matt Arriaga | Arriaga Mediation, PLLC | — | mediationsubrogation+3 | — | 59m 50s | |
| 4/3/26 | ![]() Refresh: Arbitration Decision: The End… Or Is It?✨ | arbitrationliability decision+4 | Ana Zgela | Arbitration Forums | — | arbitrationinsurance+5 | — | 54m 01s | |
| 3/20/26 | ![]() Frozen Pipes✨ | frozen pipeswater damage+4 | — | Rathbone Group, LLC | — | frozen pipeswater damage+5 | — | 36m 55s | |
| 3/6/26 | ![]() Refresh: Shedding Light on Power Utility Claims✨ | Power Utility ClaimsElectric Utility+3 | — | Rathbone Group, LLC | — | Power Utility ClaimsElectric Utility+3 | — | 43m 54s | |
| 2/20/26 | ![]() Subrogation Notices✨ | subrogationinsurance claims+3 | — | Rathbone Group, LLC | — | subrogation noticeinsurance+3 | — | 38m 44s | |
| 2/6/26 | ![]() Refresh: The eNotary Solution: Notarizing Documents In a Socially-Distanced World✨ | eNotarynotarizing documents+3 | — | Rathbone Group | — | eNotarynotarization+3 | — | 31m 41s | |
Want analysis for the episodes below?Free for Pro Submit a request, we'll have your selected episodes analyzed within an hour. Free, at no cost to you, for Pro users. | |||||||||
| 1/23/26 | ![]() Attractive Nuisance✨ | Attractive Nuisancelaw+4 | — | Attractive Nuisance Doctrine | pools of watermachinery+1 | Attractive Nuisancelaw+5 | — | 1h 09m 45s | |
| 1/9/26 | ![]() Refresh: Contributory Negligence: Recovery is Possible✨ | Contributory NegligenceLegal Standards+3 | Adam Wilk | Rathbone Group, LLC | AlabamaMaryland+3 | contributory negligencelegal standard+5 | — | 15m 00s | |
| 12/26/25 | ![]() Open and Obvious✨ | liabilityopen and obvious doctrine+3 | — | Rathbone Group, LLC | — | liabilityopen and obvious+5 | — | 55m 59s | |
| 12/12/25 | ![]() Refresh: Raising the Roof on Roofing Cases | This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Roofing Cases as a refresher! Original Air Date: August 20, 2021. Most of us are lucky enough to live and work with a roof over our head. But who's to blame when that roof is damaged or defective? Is it the installer's responsibility? Or does the accountability come straight from the source at the manufacturer? Is there someone else to consider? It may be all three. From improper installation to storm damage and even intentional acts, roof damage and the resulting liability is complex. On this week's installment, Rebecca and Steve peel back the layers of roofing claims and navigate who is responsible when a roof is defective or contributes to property damage or physical harm. | — | ||||||
| 11/28/25 | ![]() Serving Corporations | When it comes to serving lawsuits, the process of providing service is extremely important. But what happens if the party you are serving is not an individual with a home address, but a corporation? Who do you serve, and where? On this week's episode, join Rebecca and Steve as they discuss the process of service on corporations, deciphering which states require service to an authorized agent from those that simply allow service on the corporate office, and when a state agent can be a substitute for either one. | — | ||||||
| 11/14/25 | ![]() Refresh: The Do's and Don'ts of Depositions | This week, join us as we revisit our episode on The Do's and Don'ts of Depositions. Original Air Date: July 9, 2021. Whether you are testifying in your personal capacity or on behalf of an insurance company, being deposed can be nerve-wracking. Proficient opposing counsel will work to find inconsistencies and prey on weak testimony to discredit a witness, and both sides will judge the witness to evaluate settlement positions. Lack of preparation can mean missing out on resolving the matter before trial, and can harm the case before the jury is even seated. But it doesn't have to be that way! This week, Rebecca welcomes special guest, Mark Demian, for a how-to guide for deponents or witness who are being deposed regarding an insurance claim. Mark provides simple and effective guidelines to encourage successful and effective testimony. | — | ||||||
| 10/31/25 | ![]() Bad Gas | Fuel contamination can lead to costly damage, but it can also lead to recovery opportunities. What is needed to successfully prove that a claim was caused by contaminated fuel, and that a service station or distributor is liable for damage to your insured's vehicle? In this episode, Rebecca and Steve break down the ins and outs of contaminated fuel claims, from identifying responsible parties to navigating coverage and recovery challenges. Join us as we explore real-world cases, key legal considerations and strategies for maximizing recovery when poor-quality fuel leads to subrogation claims. | — | ||||||
| 10/17/25 | ![]() Refresh: Daubert & What Makes a Good Expert | This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Daubert and What Makes a Good Expert! Original Air Date: June 25, 2021. Witnesses can testify based on what they saw and heard or they can be called to the stand with expert knowledge supported by scientific data or specialized training. But expert witnesses must satisfy the court with more than a good resume – they must also show that the methodology they used to draw their conclusions are sound. On this week's installment, join Rebecca and Steve as they discuss the evolution of trial court standards for admitting expert testimony, from the Frye test, to the Daubert standard and beyond, and discuss what you should look for in a good expert witness. | — | ||||||
| 10/3/25 | ![]() Is Your Case Sharp Enough to Pierce the Corporate Veil? | Corporations are recognized as legal entities and separate from their shareholders, officers and directors. Does that mean that a corporate owner can never be held liable for the company's wrongdoing? Of course not! "Piercing the corporate veil," refers to the exception to this principle, where courts disregard this separateness and hold an owner responsible for the corporation's actions as if it were their own. On this week's podcast, join Rebecca and Steve as they explore the circumstances in which you can ask the court to ignore the corporate entity, and reach the assets of the owners. The standards are very high, but if there is enough proof, and your facts are egregious, you may be able to get through a corporate fraud and recovery from the owners' assets. | — | ||||||
| 9/19/25 | ![]() Refresh: The (Made) Whole Truth | This week, join us as we revisit our episode on the Made Whole Doctrine for a refresher! Original Air Date: May 28, 2021. The Made Whole Doctrine protects an insured's right to recovery before recovery is collected by its insurer. But what if the tortfeasor does not have enough insurance to cover the loss? Is the insured entitled to recovery for pain and suffering? And the ultimate question, when is the insured considered fully compensated for the loss? Being "made whole" varies even in those states that do apply the Made Whole Doctrine. Listen as Steve and Rebecca lead you through several states' application of the doctrine, from those that require a legal determination that the insured has been made whole before any subrogation recovery, to those that parse out the doctrine based on damage types, to those that reject it entirely. | — | ||||||
| 9/5/25 | ![]() The Changing Rules of Nevada Work Comp Subro | Workers Compensation is a very state specific thing, and recently, we have heard a lot of excited talk about work comp subrogation in Nevada. That's because the Nevada Supreme Court changed the long-standing common law rules establishing the system for calculating the amount an insurer could recover on a workers compensation claim in a decision handed down in 2024. Listen in as Rebecca and Steve walk through the rules as they developed in the common law over 38 years, then suddenly changed in 2024, and the legislature's response in 2025, to answer the question: where do Nevada work comp subrogation claims now? | — | ||||||
| 8/22/25 | ![]() Refresh: Anti-Subrogation Rule | This week, join us as we revisit our episode on the Anti-Subrogation Rule for a refresher! Original Air Date: June 11, 2021. The idea that an insurance company cannot subrogate against its own insureds seems like common sense, but is this a hard-and-fast rule? What happens when an insurance company tries to seek reimbursement for medical expenses paid to their insured when they also insure the tortfeasor who caused those injuries? What if that insured seeks her own recovery against the tortfeasor for the same medical expenses? What if an insured's intentional act was the cause of serious injuries or death? Does their insurance company have a right to subrogate to recover those amounts from their insured? In this installment in our series, follow Rebecca and Steve as they navigate the anti-subrogation rule and explain why insurance carriers cannot typically subrogate against their own insureds, and when such actions may be permitted. | — | ||||||
| 8/8/25 | ![]() Adoptive Business Records | Sometimes, the best evidence to support your subrogation case are records that were created by another company. Will a court permit these records to be introduced, or are they destined to be barred by the hearsay rule? Thankfully, the Business Records Doctrine allows a company to enter records previously created by an outside entity into evidence to prove their case. On this week's episode, Rebecca and Steve discuss what is required to properly introduce these records and how much they can influence a case. Whether invoices, emails or reports from others, find out how these records can become an influential part of a case, and how to determine if your records have the requisite indicia of trustworthiness. | — | ||||||
| 7/25/25 | ![]() Refresh: Did You Say Hearsay? | This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Hearsay for a refresher! Original Air Date: July 23, 2021. Rumor has it…there are times when the evidence you are seeking to introduce in court does not come from a witness there in court, but by someone who heard something that someone else said. If you are seeking to introduce this evidence to prove the truth of what was heard, then what you have is hearsay. Contrary to what you may have heard, hearsay isn't always inadmissible, and sometimes, hearsay isn't even (technically) hearsay. As usual, it depends – on whether the speaker is available, when and why they were speaking, and what motivated that statement. On this week's installment, Rebecca and Steve navigate the hearsay rule, its exceptions, and the exceptions to those exceptions to provide insight on precisely when out of court statements can be deemed admissible and when a court should refuse to play telephone. | — | ||||||
| 7/11/25 | ![]() The Other Side of MCS-90: Recovery from Insureds | The MCS-90 endorsement is a federally mandated provision that essentially transforms an insurance policy into a tool to protect the public. While often misunderstood, this endorsement isn't about shielding the policy holder, but rather ensuring victims are compensated, even when coverage technically doesn't apply. If the endorsement requires an insurer to pay for damages that wouldn't have been covered, however, they are not totally without options. Instead, they are placed in the unusual position of having a claim against their own insured. On this week's episode, Rebecca and Steve explore the interesting avenues for recovery when an MCS-90 endorsement results in payment outside of a policy, and how this endorsement allows for recovery from your insured. | — | ||||||
Showing 25 of 100
Pitch Fit is a Pro feature
See how bookable this show is for guests, which brands already advertise, the per-episode ad value, and the best-fit guest and sponsor profile. The numbers are blurred on the free plan.
How readily this show books outside guests like you.
How proven this show is for host-read sponsorships.
For Guests
ProFor Advertisers
ProUpgrade to Pro to unlock guest cadence, sponsor categories, fit scores, and per-episode ad value for this show.
