Page:Copeland By and Through Copeland v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.pdf/21

 Because the statute contains these express limitations on SRS' subrogation right, we are reluctant to impose additional, implied limitations on SRS’ recovery based on general equitable principles unexpressed in the statute. ''Cf. Walker'', 682 A.2d at 644 (stating “[t]he Act itself defines the operative principles that govern these exceptions. There is no warrant for the judicial imposition of another, illdefined exception [based on equitable principles] to the explicit distributive scheme of the [subrogation] statute”); Norman J. Zinger, 2A Sutherland’s Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.11 (5th ed. 1992) (stating that “exceptions are not to be implied. Where there is an express exception, it comprises the only