CDA v. GBI
In CDA v. GBI, 2007 MP 32 15, the Court found that CDA was a surety and discussed principles of equitable subrogation, but allowed CDA to recover on theories of reimbursement and restitution.
Equitable subrogation was unavailable to CDA under the facts of that case because CDA did not totally satisfy GBI's debt when it only paid the Bank of Saipan ninety-percent of what GBI owed; thus, the other two theories that a secondary obligor may recover under, reimbursement and restitution, were applicable. Id. 20 n.8.