{ "id": 2875068, "name": "The TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., an Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isabelle P. MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant, Telesfor F. Padilla, Jr., Alex Padilla, Theresa Pohl, Stella Garcia and Barbara Sanchez, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Travelers Insurance v. Montoya", "decision_date": "1977-06-07", "docket_number": "No. 2833", "first_page": "556", "last_page": "558", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "90 N.M. 556" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "566 P.2d 105" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "540 F.2d 1375", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 315343 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/540/1375-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 F.2d 325", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 132786 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/331/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 F.2d 539", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 819328 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/362/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "369 F.2d 425", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2053273 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/369/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N.M. 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2861041 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/89/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 F.Supp. 545", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 4258198 ], "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/129/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 F.Supp. 361", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 413059 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/178/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N.M. 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2867773 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/89/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 N.M. 757", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2823331 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/86/0757-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 443, "char_count": 6671, "ocr_confidence": 0.82, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.788952453542283e-08, "percentile": 0.4567606065064025 }, "sha256": "e25181ccce7c4cb94c5f1faccf471155dbc3389997feda14efbae9fa78dde3ea", "simhash": "1:8a5c39575b718a26", "word_count": 1043 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:48.706767+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "The TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., an Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isabelle P. MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant, Telesfor F. Padilla, Jr., Alex Padilla, Theresa Pohl, Stella Garcia and Barbara Sanchez, Defendants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nThe appeal involves the propriety of dismissing a counterclaim against the stakeholder in an interpleader action brought under Civil Procedure Rule 22.\nTelesfor F. Padilla had life insurance under a group policy issued by plaintiff. In the fall of 1975 Padilla changed the beneficiary of the life insurance to his daughter, Isabelle P. Montoya. Padilla died in June, 1976. Plaintiff was,put on notice of conflicting claims to the insurance proceeds. Plaintiff filed an interpleader action naming Padilla\u2019s children as defendants. Plaintiff also paid the life insurance proceeds into the registry of the trial court. Although the briefs discuss whether inter-pleader was proper under the facts alleged in the pleadings, there is no issue as to the propriety of the interpleader action. The trial court\u2019s order authorizing the action has not been challenged in the appeal.\nThe pleadings show two claimants to the life insurance proceeds\u2014daughter Montoya and the other children. Each claimant has cross-claimed against the other claimant; this appeal does not involve the cross-claims.\nMontoya filed a counterclaim against plaintiff. The counterclaim alleged that plaintiff\u2019s failure to pay the life insurance proceeds to her was wilful, wanton and in bad faith. In addition to the life insurance proceeds, Montoya sought compensatory damage for loss of use of the money and punitive damages.\nNew Mexico recognizes a tort claim for unreasonable delay, in bad faith, in making payments pursuant to the insurance contract. See State Farm General Insurance Company v. Clifton, 86 N.M. 757, 527 P.2d 798 (1974); Chavez v. Chenoweth, 89 N.M. 423, 553 P.2d 703 (Ct.App.1976). Thus, Montoya\u2019s counterclaim against plaintiff seeks a recovery in tort in addition to the life insurance proceeds. With such a recovery being sought, cases dismissing counterclaims, on the basis that only the stake of the interpleader was involved, do not apply. See Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Jackson, 178 F.Supp. 361 (D.C. Penn.1959); Old Colony Insurance Company v. Lampert, 129 F.Supp. 545 (D.C.New Jersey 1955).\nPlaintiff moved to dismiss Montoya\u2019s counterclaim \u201con the ground that said counterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.\u201d The motion was granted, the counterclaim was dismissed, Montoya appealed.\nPlaintiff\u2019s motion to dismiss was authorized by Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). The motion, however, is properly granted only if it appears that Montoya could not recover under any state of facts provable under her counterclaim. Villegas v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 89 N.M. 387, 552 P.2d 1235 (Ct.App.1976) and cases therein cited. Since New Mexico recognizes the tort claim asserted by Montoya, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained on the basis that the counterclaim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.\nPlaintiff\u2019s position is \u201cthat the court had no jurisdiction to entertain a counterclaim in this interpleader action and that defendant . . . Montoya had no right to file one.\u201d This position is based on the view that plaintiff, as stakeholder with adverse claimants to the insurance proceeds, is not an opposing party against whom a counterclaim can be filed. Plaintiff points out that the rule concerning compulsory counterclaims, Civil Procedure 13(a), requires an \u201copposing party\u201d. To support its claim that it is not an opposing party, plaintiff cites three decisions of the Tenth Circuit. They are: Knoll v. Socony Mobil Oil Company, 369 F.2d 425 (10th Cir. 1966); Erie Bank v. United States District Court for Dist. of Colo., 362 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1966); First National Bank in Dodge City v. Johnson County National Bank and Trust Co., 331 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1964).\nThe Tenth Circuit decisions on which plaintiff relies were partially overruled in Liberty National Bank and Trust Co. of Oklahoma City v. Acme Tool Division of Rucker Co., et al, 540 F.2d 1375 (10th Cir. 1976). This decision points out that the Tenth Circuit rule as to counterclaims stands alone; this decision overruled the above-named Tenth Circuit decisions to the extent that they deny the interposing of a compulsory counterclaim in an interpleader action.\nAs to the plaintiff\u2019s claim that it is not an opposing party, 7 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (1972), \u00a7 1715, page 448 states: \u201c. . inasmuch as the stakeholder\u2019s discharge will bar the claimant from asserting any rights against him related to the deposited fund or property, as a practical matter there really is an antagonistic relationship between them.\u201d\nThe applicable rule, in our opinion, is stated in 3A Moore\u2019s Federal Practice (1974), \u00b6 22.15 at pages 3129-3130, as follows:\n\u201cThe interpleader court may properly be employed as a forum to resolve not only the basic title contest between claimants, but also other disputes between the claimants, or between a claimant and the stakeholder. Thus, an allegation by one or more claimants that the stakeholder plaintiff is subject to an independent liability may be raised as a counterclaim under Rule 13; indeed, in the typical case such a counterclaim is compulsory. .\nThe stakeholder-plaintiff, having initiated the interpleader action, and subjected itself thereby to the personal jurisdiction of the court, cannot complain if a claimant\u2019s answer seeks to interpose a counterclaim for relief in excess of or different from the subject matter of the inter-pleader dispute.\u201d\nPlaintiff asserts that even under the above rule Montoya cannot recover on her counterclaim because there was no bad faith on plaintiff\u2019s part in failing to pay the insurance proceeds to Montoya. The correctness of this contention is not before us because it depends on the facts. The facts have not been reached because plaintiff obtained a dismissal of the counterclaim on the basis of the pleadings.\nOral argument is unnecessary. The trial court erred in dismissing Montoya\u2019s counterclaim on the pleadings. Its order of dismissal is reversed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jacob Carian, Carian, Casey & Carian, Albuquerque, for appellant.", "Richard C. Civerolo, Civerolo, Hansen & Wolf, Albuquerque, for defendants.", "Charles B. Larrabee, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P. A., Albuquerque, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "566 P.2d 105\nThe TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., an Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isabelle P. MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant, Telesfor F. Padilla, Jr., Alex Padilla, Theresa Pohl, Stella Garcia and Barbara Sanchez, Defendants.\nNo. 2833.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 7, 1977.\nJacob Carian, Carian, Casey & Carian, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nRichard C. Civerolo, Civerolo, Hansen & Wolf, Albuquerque, for defendants.\nCharles B. Larrabee, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P. A., Albuquerque, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0556-01", "first_page_order": 592, "last_page_order": 594 }