 |
 |
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
ction, by reason of honest mistake, is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, the court may allow a reasonable time for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification, joinder or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest."
We held that Crumpacker had made an "honest mistake" within the meaning of Rule 1-017(A). Crumpacker, 28. We rejected the defendants' argument that Rule 1-015(C) NMRA 1998 prohibits relation back when the new plaintiff is added after expiration of the period of limitations. See id. 22-37. Rule 1-015(C) reads:
"Relation back of amendments. Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment:
(1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits; and
(2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him."
We found inapplicable the portion of the Rule relating to new parties because it does not apply to a new plaintiff but only to a "'party against whom a claim is asserted.'" Crumpacker, 25 (quoting Rule 1- 015(C)).
{10} Here, as in Crumpacker, we hold that the relation-back provision of Rule 1-017(A) applies because the failure to include Mills-Strebeck as an original plaintiff was an honest mistake. In the case before us the district court entered several findings of fact and Conclusions of law pertinent to this issue. Finding 26 states in part:
" or the period [Chrysler] provided insurance services to [Teague-Strebeck], [Teague-Strebeck] acted as an insurance clearinghouse for the Strebeck auto entities. [Chrysler] charged one premium for the insurance policy, which was paid by [Teague-Strebeck], and [Teague-Strebeck] submitted claims for itself and on behalf of the other Strebeck auto entities."
Findings 134 through 136 state specifically that in December 1993 Chrysler amended the Teague-Strebeck policy to name Mills-Strebeck as an additional insured, with an effective date of July 7, 1993 (a week before the fire), and that Teague-Strebeck paid the premium for the amendment in 1994. The district court concluded that Teague-Strebeck was a "proper party plaintiff to bring this action for the benefit of [Mills-Strebeck]." Moreover, it is undisputed that Chrysler made a payment of $96,200 to Teague-Strebeck in May 1994 to cover losses from the fire at the Mills-Strebeck dealership.
{11} We recognize that the district court did not make an explicit finding that the failure to join Mills-Strebeck as a plaintiff was an "honest mistake." See Rule 1-017(A). But no rule requires a district court to enter findings of fact or Conclusions of law in support of an order permitting amendment of a pleading. In our view, the record is clear that the district court in essence found that the failure to name Mills-Strebeck as a plaintiff was an honest mistake arising from the course of dealings among the parties and that the addition of Mills- Strebeck as a plaintiff caused absolutely no prejudice to Chrysler's ability to defend 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.
|
|