In State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1098, the premises of State Farm's insureds sustained damage from a fire that had started in an adjacent apartment building. State Farm paid its insureds' claim for the fire loss, and then sued in subrogation the other apartment building's owner and others (respondents). Although the respondents had not actually ignited the fire, State Farm contended the fire was caused by the respondents' negligent failure to provide for the safe disposal of fireplace ashes. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents, on the ground that State Farm's claims were barred by the doctrine of superior equities. (Id. at p. 1103.) The appellate court reversed. The court rejected the respondents' contention that the insurer was not entitled to subrogation due to its receipt of premiums. "The fact that an insurer has been compensated for its risk does not, in and of itself, swing the balance in favor of a third party. Rather, compensation is a 'fact to be considered, it is no more than that ... .' " (State Farm, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1110-1111.) The State Farm court then noted that "a significant factor in weighing the equities is whether a defendant's negligent acts were related to or contributed to the primary cause of loss," and the issue was "whether respondents were in a better position to avoid the loss than State Farm or its insureds." (State Farm, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1118.) "While arguably an insurer should in fairness bear the loss where the third party's liability is solely contractual citing Morse, Meyers, and Patent Scaffolding but noting the split of authority in Wilshire and Meyer Koulish, such a result seems unfair when the loss has been caused by the third party's tortious conduct." (State Farm, at p. 1118 & fn. 12.) Because State Farm alleged that the respondents negligently permitted a fire to occur and to spread to its insureds' property, it could proceed in subrogation against the respondents, even though the respondents had not actually started the fire. (Id. at p. 1119.) The court in State Farm ruled: "In the case at bench, the contest is between an innocent insurance company (which admittedly received premiums for the very loss that occurred) and alleged tortfeasors (who did not physically start the fire, but whose negligence allegedly permitted the fire to be started and to spread by failing to provide for the safe disposal of fireplace ashes). On this record, we cannot say that respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, based on the doctrine of superior equities. We reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment on that basis." (State Farm, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1119.)