 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Teague-Strebeck Motors Inc. v. Chrysler Insurance Co.3/8/1999
any money on account of this estate except exempt property[.]"
{4} Strebeck had begun his business relationship with Chrysler in 1990, when he acquired coverage through Rodell Rudel, a field underwriting and sales manager for Chrysler. Although there was no corporate link between the various Strebeck automobile dealerships, the policy listed Teague-Strebeck (a dealership owned by Strebeck and Cleve Teague) as the named insured, with the remaining dealerships listed as additional insureds under a master policy. Chrysler charged one premium for the policy, which was paid by Teague-Strebeck; Teague-Strebeck then submitted claims on behalf of itself and the other dealerships. Sometime prior to March 23, 1993, Rudel told Cleve Teague that if Strebeck acquired a new dealership, there would be full coverage for a period of up to 90 days; Teague conveyed that representation to Strebeck.
{5} After the July 1993 fire Chrysler contested the property-loss claims on the ground that Strebeck and his corporations had no insurable interest in the property. There were also disputes regarding coverage under the Garagekeepers Legal Liability (GKLL) provision of Teague- Strebeck's policy. GKLL coverage, roughly speaking, provides liability insurance with respect to customer vehicles that are damaged while being serviced at the dealership. Chrysler eventually covered claims for damages to customer vehicles, but the district court determined that Chrysler improperly delayed those payments and awarded $75,000 for injuries to the business reputation of Mills-Strebeck as a result of Chrysler's bad faith adjustment of the claims.
II. ADDING MILLS-STREBECK AS A PLAINTIFF
{6} The original complaint was filed on November 3, 1994. It named Teague-Strebeck and Strebeck individually as the plaintiffs. Mills- Strebeck did not become a party until January 8, 1997, the day before trial. The motion to amend the complaint to add Mills-Strebeck as a plaintiff had been filed two days earlier. Strebeck was dismissed as a plaintiff by the district court at the Conclusion of trial testimony. Ultimately, the court entered judgment in favor of Mills-Strebeck.
{7} Chrysler contends that the district court erred in permitting the amendment adding Mills-Strebeck as a plaintiff and in concluding that the amendment related back to the filing of the original complaint. If the amendment did not relate back, according to Chrysler, Mills- Strebeck's claim is barred by the provision in the insurance policy that states: "No one may bring a legal action against us under this Coverage Part unless . . . he action is brought within two years after the date on which the direct physical loss or damage occurred." The loss occurred more than two years before Mills-Strebeck was added as a plaintiff.
{8} We believe that the issue before us is governed by our recent decision in Crumpacker v. DeNaples, 1998-NMCA-169, 126 N.M. 288, 968 P.2d 799. Crumpacker's suit against the defendants arose out of surgery performed in 1992. In 1994 she filed for bankruptcy . The bankruptcy case closed in August 1996. In the meantime, in February 1996 Crumpacker had filed her suit against the defendants. She had never disclosed in the bankruptcy proceeding her cause of action against the defendants or the fact that she had initiated litigation. In May 1997 Crumpacker filed a motion to add the bankruptcy trustee as the real party in interest. The trial court denied the motion and granted the defendants summary judgment.
{9} We reversed, ordering the trial court to allow the amended complaint. We relied on Rule 1-017(A) NMRA 1998, the final sentence of which states:
"Where it appears that an a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|