Rhodes v. Lucero

444 P.2d 588, 79 N.M. 403
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 26, 1968
Docket8580
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 444 P.2d 588 (Rhodes v. Lucero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rhodes v. Lucero, 444 P.2d 588, 79 N.M. 403 (N.M. 1968).

Opinion

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

This is a declaratory judgment action. A motor vehicle owned by the plaintiff Rhodes was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle owned and operated by the defendant, Manuel T. Lucero, and, as a result, the Rhodes vehicle of the value of $1,900.00 was completely destroyed.

The Rhodes vehicle was insured against loss by the plaintiff, Government Employees Insurance Company. The plaintiff 'insurer paid Rhodes $1,800.00 in settlement of its obligation and thereby became subrogated to the right of plaintiff Rhodes in this amount, leaving to plaintiff Rhodes a claim of $100.00 against defendant Lucero in his own right. i

Defendant insurer, Foundation Reserve Insurance Company, has denied coverage, and the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment against the defendants to determine whether a policy of insurance issued by the alleged defendant insurer covers the defendant, Manuel T. Lucero. The defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss for failure to state grounds for relief was granted. Judgment dismissing the cause with prejudice was entered, and the plaintiffs appeal.

We see no error in the ruling of the court. The complaint does not present justiciable controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant insurer. Plaintiffs hold no judgment against defendant Lucero and their rights of recovery against him are contingent. The policy itself does not confer the right to join Foundation Reserve as a party defendant in the suit, nor is such right authorized by statute. In this posture of the case, summary judgment was proper. Piale v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, 209 Or. 99, 302 P.2d 1010.

Another point is urged for a reversal of the judgment but, in view of the conclusion already announced, a discussion of the point is found unnecessary.

The judgment must be affirmed. It is so ■ordered.

CHAVEZ, C. J., and NOBLE, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Martinez v. Conner
D. New Mexico, 2021
Cohen v. Continental Casualty Co.
New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2013
KNIGHT EX REL. ELLIS v. Miller
2008 OK 81 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2008)
C & H Construction & Paving, Inc. v. Foundation Reserve Insurance
512 P.2d 947 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1973)
Baca v. New Mexico State Highway Department
486 P.2d 625 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
444 P.2d 588, 79 N.M. 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-lucero-nm-1968.