DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
NO. CIV 01-388
JANE WHITE
Plaintiff
Vs.
Sage Rent-A-Car Inc.
Defendant
ARGUMENT
Ms White’s claim that Sage Rent-A-Car should be liable for the damage done by one of its lessees, under the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, does not hold up because under section 65-5-207, as a self – insured corporation, they are exempt from this act.
This matter is before the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The defendant, in this matter, Sage Rent-A-Car leased a vehicle to Jeffery Calkin. Mr. Calkin , while driving the vehicle leased from the defendant, ran a stop sign, and collided with Ms. White’s vehicle. Ms. White wishes to extend the liability stemming from Mr. Calkin’s negligence to the rental company from which Mr. Calkin leased the vehicle. The plaintiff claims that Sage Rent-A-Car shares liability under the New Mexico Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, however the rental company is exempt from this act under MFRA, NMSA 1978 section 655-5-207 (1988), which states that, “The following motor vehicles are exempt from the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act:… E. A motor vehicle approved as self-insured by the superintendent of insurance.” When Sage incorporated, it filed a surety bond with the superintendent of insurance, and is there-fore self-insured and exempt from the responsibility otherwise required by this act. In the case of Las Lumiarias of the N.M. Council v. Isengard, 92 N.M. 297, 300-301, which the court affirms that, “A motion to dismiss a complaint is properly granted only when it appears that the plaintiff cannot recover or be entitled to relief under any state of facts provable under the claim.” In this case the plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the rental car company because the company is exempt from financial responsibility under the provisions of the law. The Supreme Court of New Mexico addresses the exemption from the MRFA for self-insured rental car companies in the case of Cordova v. Wolfel 120 N.M. 557m 903 P.2d 1390(1995), concluding that the MFRA does not impose such liability on the rental car company.
In Cordova v Wolfel, Priscilla Abeyta rented a car from National Car Rental Systems inc. intending to drive her son and his friends to Reno, Nevada. She became ill and could not make the trip and her son and his friends left without her. Shortly into the trip on of the friends, Mr. Frederick Wolfel, was driving when through, his own negligence he wrecked the vehicle, injuring the other friend, Mr. Anthony Cordova. Mr. Cordova claimed to have sustained 650,000 dollars worth of injuries and brought suit against the Wolfel, the Abeytas, Traveler’s Insurance Company, who held Ms. Abeyta’s liability policy, and National Car Rental systems. Cordova settled his claims against the Abeyta’s and Wolfel. The court granted summary judgement in favor of Travelers after It determined that the insurance contract between the Abeytas and Travelers did not extend coverage to the rental car. This left National Car Rental Systems as the sole defendant in this case. Like Sage Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental Systems was a self insured car rental company, being sued for the negligent actions of a driver of one of their leased vehicles.
“National maintained that as the self-insured owner of the rental car, it is not an insurer and there was no insurance contract between it and Abeyta. They further contended that The MFRA specifically exempt self-insurers from its provisions.” The case goes on to explain the difference between self- insurance and insurance. Self- insurance is not insurance, it’s “a process of risk retention whereby the company sets aside assets to meet foreseeable future losses. It is not an insurance policy and while it can serve the purpose of providing legal protection, cannot be treated as an insurance policy. “A self-insure protects itself from liability; it does not assume the risk of another. Levi Strauss and Co. 112 N.M. at 436-37, 816P.2d at 505-06. The Case clearly states that the” New Mexico legislature has not enacted legislation that would make vehicle lessors generally liable for injuries that result when lessees negligently use their vehicles, and ..(the Court) declines to take that step in the absence of legislative action.” The Court clearly states that “in unambiguous language, the MFRA exempts from its provisions “motor vehicles approved as self insured by the superintendent of insurance”:. In the case of Cordova v. National Car Rental Systems, the court concluded that” National is exempt from the MFRA and that in the absence of a contractual agreement, National is not vicariously liable for Wolfel’s negligence.”
In Cordova v Wolfel, the driver at the time of the accident, Wolfel, was not authorized to drive the rental car in question. For this reason, Mrs. Abeyta’s insurance company rejected Cordova’s claim for relief by stating that the Traveler’s insurance policy, carried by Mrs. Abeyta did not extend to the rental car in question. Mrs. Abeyta, also refused to purchase an additional insurance policy which would allow another to drive the rental car in question. As Mr. Calkin, the negligent party in the case of Ms. White’s accident, was the authorized driver of the rental car at the time of the accident, it may be argued that the decision of the Court to reject Cordova’s claim against the rental car company, does not set clear precedence in this case. However, in the words of the court, “a vehicle lessor is liable for the negligence of a lessee or a lessee’s permitee only to the extent that a statute administrative regulation , or agreement of the parties imposes such liability. In this state of New Mexico the statute’s clear language leaves no room for confusion: the rental company is clearly exempt from liability under 65-5-207. It clearly falls to the driver of the rental vehicle to provide insurance on that vehicle.
In this case on point, the Supreme court clearly upheld the section of the MFRA, NMSA 1978 section 65-5-207 (1988) which holds that self- insured vehicles are exempt from the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act. In the case of Sage Rent-A-Car, the relevant statute and the state’s interpretation of that statute in the case on point, clearly show that the rental company is exempt from liability in this case and the case should clearly be dismissed because the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any state of facts provable under the claim. The rental company is not liable or responsible for the negligent actions, of the driver, and has no responsibility with regards to this claim. I feel that the law speaks clearly on this matter and would respectfully request that this case be dismissed because the plaintiff cannot recover or be entitled to relief from this company under the laws of this state.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
NO. CIV 01-388
JANE WHITE
Plaintiff
Vs.
Sage Rent-A-Car Inc.
Defendant
ARGUMENT
Ms White’s claim that Sage Rent-A-Car should be liable for the damage done by one of its lessees, under the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, does not hold up because under section 65-5-207, as a self – insured corporation, they are exempt from this act.
This matter is before the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The defendant, in this matter, Sage Rent-A-Car leased a vehicle to Jeffery Calkin. Mr. Calkin , while driving the vehicle leased from the defendant, ran a stop sign, and collided with Ms. White’s vehicle. Ms. White wishes to extend the liability stemming from Mr. Calkin’s negligence to the rental company from which Mr. Calkin leased the vehicle. The plaintiff claims that Sage Rent-A-Car shares liability under the New Mexico Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, however the rental company is exempt from this act under MFRA, NMSA 1978 section 655-5-207 (1988), which states that, “The following motor vehicles are exempt from the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act:… E. A motor vehicle approved as self-insured by the superintendent of insurance.” When Sage incorporated, it filed a surety bond with the superintendent of insurance, and is there-fore self-insured and exempt from the responsibility otherwise required by this act. In the case of Las Lumiarias of the N.M. Council v. Isengard, 92 N.M. 297, 300-301, which the court affirms that, “A motion to dismiss a complaint is properly granted only when it appears that the plaintiff cannot recover or be entitled to relief under any state of facts provable under the claim.” In this case the plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the rental car company because the company is exempt from financial responsibility under the provisions of the law. The Supreme Court of New Mexico addresses the exemption from the MRFA for self-insured rental car companies in the case of Cordova v. Wolfel 120 N.M. 557m 903 P.2d 1390(1995), concluding that the MFRA does not impose such liability on the rental car company.
In Cordova v Wolfel, Priscilla Abeyta rented a car from National Car Rental Systems inc. intending to drive her son and his friends to Reno, Nevada. She became ill and could not make the trip and her son and his friends left without her. Shortly into the trip on of the friends, Mr. Frederick Wolfel, was driving when through, his own negligence he wrecked the vehicle, injuring the other friend, Mr. Anthony Cordova. Mr. Cordova claimed to have sustained 650,000 dollars worth of injuries and brought suit against the Wolfel, the Abeytas, Traveler’s Insurance Company, who held Ms. Abeyta’s liability policy, and National Car Rental systems. Cordova settled his claims against the Abeyta’s and Wolfel. The court granted summary judgement in favor of Travelers after It determined that the insurance contract between the Abeytas and Travelers did not extend coverage to the rental car. This left National Car Rental Systems as the sole defendant in this case. Like Sage Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental Systems was a self insured car rental company, being sued for the negligent actions of a driver of one of their leased vehicles.
“National maintained that as the self-insured owner of the rental car, it is not an insurer and there was no insurance contract between it and Abeyta. They further contended that The MFRA specifically exempt self-insurers from its provisions.” The case goes on to explain the difference between self- insurance and insurance. Self- insurance is not insurance, it’s “a process of risk retention whereby the company sets aside assets to meet foreseeable future losses. It is not an insurance policy and while it can serve the purpose of providing legal protection, cannot be treated as an insurance policy. “A self-insure protects itself from liability; it does not assume the risk of another. Levi Strauss and Co. 112 N.M. at 436-37, 816P.2d at 505-06. The Case clearly states that the” New Mexico legislature has not enacted legislation that would make vehicle lessors generally liable for injuries that result when lessees negligently use their vehicles, and ..(the Court) declines to take that step in the absence of legislative action.” The Court clearly states that “in unambiguous language, the MFRA exempts from its provisions “motor vehicles approved as self insured by the superintendent of insurance”:. In the case of Cordova v. National Car Rental Systems, the court concluded that” National is exempt from the MFRA and that in the absence of a contractual agreement, National is not vicariously liable for Wolfel’s negligence.”
In Cordova v Wolfel, the driver at the time of the accident, Wolfel, was not authorized to drive the rental car in question. For this reason, Mrs. Abeyta’s insurance company rejected Cordova’s claim for relief by stating that the Traveler’s insurance policy, carried by Mrs. Abeyta did not extend to the rental car in question. Mrs. Abeyta, also refused to purchase an additional insurance policy which would allow another to drive the rental car in question. As Mr. Calkin, the negligent party in the case of Ms. White’s accident, was the authorized driver of the rental car at the time of the accident, it may be argued that the decision of the Court to reject Cordova’s claim against the rental car company, does not set clear precedence in this case. However, in the words of the court, “a vehicle lessor is liable for the negligence of a lessee or a lessee’s permitee only to the extent that a statute administrative regulation , or agreement of the parties imposes such liability. In this state of New Mexico the statute’s clear language leaves no room for confusion: the rental company is clearly exempt from liability under 65-5-207. It clearly falls to the driver of the rental vehicle to provide insurance on that vehicle.
In this case on point, the Supreme court clearly upheld the section of the MFRA, NMSA 1978 section 65-5-207 (1988) which holds that self- insured vehicles are exempt from the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act. In the case of Sage Rent-A-Car, the relevant statute and the state’s interpretation of that statute in the case on point, clearly show that the rental company is exempt from liability in this case and the case should clearly be dismissed because the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any state of facts provable under the claim. The rental company is not liable or responsible for the negligent actions, of the driver, and has no responsibility with regards to this claim. I feel that the law speaks clearly on this matter and would respectfully request that this case be dismissed because the plaintiff cannot recover or be entitled to relief from this company under the laws of this state.