Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brinkerhoff v. Swearingen Aviation Corp.green2 sentences2011See, e.g., Brinkerhoff v. Swearingen Aviation Corp., 663 P.2d 937, 942 (Alaska 1983); Great W. 2011See, e.g., Brinkerhoff v. Swearingen Aviation Corp., 663 P.2d 937, 942 (Alaska 1983); Great W. | 2 | 2 |
Trujillo v. Berrygreen2 sentences2008See generally Trujillo v. Berry, 106 N.M. 86, 90 , 738 P.2d 1331, 1335 (Ct.App.1987) (holding that the supplier of a defective product manufactured by another was entitled to seek indemnity from a manufacturer based on strict products liability). {12} Traditional indemnification provides an indemnitee, who has been held liable for damages, the right to be made whole by a third party, such as the primary wrongdoer. 2008See generally Trujillo v. Berry, 106 N.M. 86, 90 , 738 P.2d 1331, 1335 (Ct.App.1987) (holding that the supplier of a defective product manufactured by another was entitled to seek indemnity from a manufacturer based on strict products liability). {12} Traditional indemnification provides an indemnitee, who has been held liable for damages, the right to be made whole by a third party, such as the primary wrongdoer. | 2 | 2 |
Farmers Insurance Group of Companies v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2007Martinez gives recognition to this principle by using the phrase “knowledge of that payment” in its holding. 107 N.M. at 84 , 752 P.2d at 799 (emphasis added). 2007Martinez gives recognition to this principle by using the phrase “knowledge of that payment” in its holding. 107 N.M. at 84 , 752 P.2d at 799 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Raton Natural Gas Co.green2 sentences1995The doctrine of subrogation “is founded upon the relationship of the parties and upon equitable principles, for the purpose of accomplishing the substantial ends of justice.” Raton, 86 N.M. at 162-63 , 521 P.2d at 124 -25 (quoting 6A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 4054 at 142-44). 9. 1995The doctrine of subrogation “is founded upon the relationship of the parties and upon equitable principles, for the purpose of accomplishing the substantial ends of justice.” Raton, 86 N.M. at 162-63 , 521 P.2d at 124 -25 (quoting 6A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 4054 at 142-44). 9. | 1 | 2 |
Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc.green1 sentence2011Id. at 442. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Regents of New Mexico State University v. Siplast, Inc.green2 sentences2009See Siplast, 117 N.M. at 740-43 , 877 P.2d at 40-43 . 2009See Siplast, 117 N.M. at 740-43 , 877 P.2d at 40-43 . | 1 | 1 |
American General Fire & Casualty Co. v. Progressive Casualty Co.green2 sentences2006Co., 110 N.M. 741, 745 , 799 P.2d 1113, 1117 (1990) (holding that the plaintiff insurer had a subrogation right against the defendant insurer because the plaintiff insurer was required by law and fiduciary obligations to defend); id. at 748 , 799 P.2d at 1120 (Montgomery, J., specially concurring) (noting that the insurer’s claim for subrogation did “not fit the classical model of the remedy” because the liabilities of the insurers were mutually exclusive; concluding nonetheless that extending the remedy to the insurer was consistent with the equitable principles underlying the doctrine of sub 2006Co., 110 N.M. 741, 745 , 799 P.2d 1113, 1117 (1990) (holding that the plaintiff insurer had a subrogation right against the defendant insurer because the plaintiff insurer was required by law and fiduciary obligations to defend); id. at 748 , 799 P.2d at 1120 (Montgomery, J., specially concurring) (noting that the insurer’s claim for subrogation did “not fit the classical model of the remedy” because the liabilities of the insurers were mutually exclusive; concluding nonetheless that extending the remedy to the insurer was consistent with the equitable principles underlying the doctrine of sub | 1 | 1 |
Bowen v. American Family Insurance Groupgreen1 sentence1995Group, 504 N.W.2d 604, 605 (S.D.1993); see also Krause, 169 N.W.2d at 603-04 (noting that there is a single cause of action and finding that the insured must hold the amount of the subrogation claim for the benefit of the insurer and must account for this amount after recovering from the tortfeasor). 11. | 1 | 1 |
Krause v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen1 sentence1995Group, 504 N.W.2d 604, 605 (S.D.1993); see also Krause, 169 N.W.2d at 603-04 (noting that there is a single cause of action and finding that the insured must hold the amount of the subrogation claim for the benefit of the insurer and must account for this amount after recovering from the tortfeasor). 11. | 1 | 1 |
Hedgebeth v. Medfordgreen2 sentences1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). 1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quality Chiropractic, PC v. Farmers Insurance
green
2 sentences2019Co. of Ariz., 2002-NMCA-080, ¶ 21 , 132 N.M. 518 , 51 P.3d 1172 (stating that subrogation was developed with the intent to avoid unjust enrichment). {14} The doctrine of subrogation is “liberally applied for the protection of its natural beneficiaries who are insurers which have paid losses caused by a third party.” 16 Russ & Segalla, supra, § 222:9, at 222-34. 2019Co. of Ariz., 2002-NMCA-080, ¶ 21 , 132 N.M. 518 , 51 P.3d 1172 (stating that subrogation was developed with the intent to avoid unjust enrichment). {14} The doctrine of subrogation is “liberally applied for the protection of its natural beneficiaries who are insurers which have paid losses caused by a third party.” 16 Russ & Segalla, supra, § 222:9, at 222-34. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jones v. Foster
green
1 sentence2009Id. 3 The contract, in Sections 11.4.1 and 11.4.7, provided that the school district 4 would get a builder’s risk policy covering all parties, and that all parties would waive 5 any right of subrogation. [RP 42-43] The roofing company persuaded the court that 6 under Siplast there was no right of subrogation, and obtained summary judgment 7 against the Insurance Authority on the subrogation claim. [RP 117] 8 The essential issue in this case has already been decided by our Supreme Court 9 adversely to Plaintiff. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Motto v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2002The other possibility, the Court observed, was that “claims for personal injuries are assignable and ... the subrogation clause works such an assignment.” Id. {15} The Motto Court concluded that personal injury claims are assignable. . 2002Id. at 36 , 462 P.2d at 621 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pena v. Thorington
green
2 sentences1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). 1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
United Services Automobile Association v. Hills
green
2 sentences1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). 1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Clinton
green
2 sentences1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). 1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Geline
green
2 sentences1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). 1980United Services Automobile Association v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128 , 109 N.W.2d 174 (1961); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clinton, 267 Or. 653 , 518 P.2d 645 (1974); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Geline, 48 Wis.2d 290 , 179 N.W.2d 815 (1970); see, Hedgebeth v. Medford, 74 N.J. 360 , 378 A.2d 226 (1977); Pena v. Thorington, 23 Wash. App. 277 , 595 P.2d 61 (1979). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
White v. Sutherland
green
2 sentences1980White v. Sutherland, 92 N.M. 187 , 585 P.2d 331 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 92 N.M. 79 , 582 P.2d 1292 (1978). [The doctrine of subrogation] originates in the general principles of equity, and will be applied or not according to the *226 dictates of equity and good conscience and consideration of public policy. 1980White v. Sutherland, 92 N.M. 187 , 585 P.2d 331 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 92 N.M. 79 , 582 P.2d 1292 (1978). [The doctrine of subrogation] originates in the general principles of equity, and will be applied or not according to the *226 dictates of equity and good conscience and consideration of public policy. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Armijo v. Foundation Reserve Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1969In Armijo v. Foundation Reserve Insurance Company, 75 N.M. 592 , 408 P.2d 750 , we held that the insured, by releasing the joint tortfeasor from liability for a loss before payment of the loss had been made by the insurer, destroyed any rights of subrogation the insurer had against the joint tortfeasor and thus precluded recovery (by the terms of the subrogation clause) against the insurer under the policy. 1969In Armijo v. Foundation Reserve Insurance Company, 75 N.M. 592 , 408 P.2d 750 , we held that the insured, by releasing the joint tortfeasor from liability for a loss before payment of the loss had been made by the insurer, destroyed any rights of subrogation the insurer had against the joint tortfeasor and thus precluded recovery (by the terms of the subrogation clause) against the insurer under the policy. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Kandelin v. Lee Moor Contracting Co.
green
2 sentences1960Kandelin v. Lee Moor Contracting Co., 1933, 37 N.M. 479 , 24 P.2d 731 . 1960Kandelin v. Lee Moor Contracting Co., 1933, 37 N.M. 479 , 24 P.2d 731 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.