Nassar v. Utah Mortg. & Loan Corp.

Decision Date13 October 1983
Docket Number7158,Nos. 7043,s. 7043
Citation1983 NMCA 122,671 P.2d 667,100 N.M. 419
PartiesSaid NASSAR and Nassar Y. Nassar, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UTAH MORTGAGE & LOAN CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, and Safeco Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico
John P. Burton, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee Utah Mortgage Loan Corp
OPINION

NEAL, Judge.

In this case we consider a standard mortgage clause in a fire insurance policy and the respective duties imposed by that clause on the parties in this suit. Safeco moved for summary judgment against the plaintiffs. This motion was denied. Utah Mortgage moved for summary judgment against the plaintiffs. This motion was granted and the plaintiffs appeal. Utah Mortgage also moved to dismiss Safeco's cross-claim for failure to state a claim. This motion was granted and Safeco appeals.

Said Nassar purchased a home in Albuquerque and took out a fire insurance policy with Safeco. This policy named Said Nassar as the insured and included a mortgage clause, which we will set out later in this opinion. The mortgagee was Utah Mortgage.

Said Nassar's brother, Nassar Nassar, rented the house until February 1981, when Nassar Nassar bought the house from Said Nassar. Nassar Nassar then attempted to notify Safeco and Utah Mortgage of the change in ownership. According to his deposition he called Safeco and the receptionist told him to call The Insurance Center, Safeco's agent in Albuquerque, from whom the policy was purchased. Nassar Nassar did so, but was told by the receptionist at The Insurance Center that he should call Utah Mortgage. Nassar said that he twice talked to a woman at Utah Mortgage who assured him everything was fine. In addition, Nassar Nassar's attorney wrote a letter to Utah Mortgage advising it of the change in ownership. Utah Mortgage has denied receiving this letter.

On May 5, 1981, Nassar Nassar attempted to burn counterfeit money in the fireplace. He placed the money in the fireplace with a little gasoline and lit it. The resulting explosion and fire severely damaged the house. It cost $19,971.88 to repair the house, which the plaintiffs paid.

The plaintiffs then filed this suit, based on the policy, to recover that amount against Safeco. They also named Utah Mortgage as a defendant. Their theory against Utah Mortgage was that Utah Mortgage had a duty to notify Safeco of the change in ownership and therefore, if Safeco did not have to pay because it had no notice of the change in ownership, Utah Mortgage would be liable. Safeco filed a cross-claim against Utah Mortgage. Safeco's theory was that Utah Mortgage had a duty to notify it of the change of ownership and having failed to do so should indemnify Safeco if Safeco had to pay the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs and Safeco contend that the mortgage clause obligates Utah Mortgage to notify Safeco of any change in ownership. The mortgage clause states:

7. Mortgage Clause: Not applicable in Massachusetts and Minnesota (applies to building items only and is effective only when policy is made payable to a named mortgagee or trustee).

Loss, if any, under this policy, shall be payable to the aforesaid as mortgagee (or trustee) as interest may appear under all present or future mortgages upon the property herein described in which the aforesaid may have an interest as mortgagee (or trustee) in order of precedence of said mortgages, and this insurance, as to the interest of the mortgagee (or trustee) only therein, shall not be invalidated by any act or neglect of the mortgagor or owner of the within described property nor by any foreclosure or other proceedings or notice of sale relating to the property, nor by any change in the title of ownership of the property, nor by the occupation of the premises for purposes more hazardous than are permitted by this policy; provided, that in case the mortgagor or owner shall neglect to pay any premium due under this policy the mortgagee (or trustee) shall, on demand pay the same.

Provided, also, that the mortgagee (or trustee) shall notify this Company of any change of ownership or occupancy or increase of hazard which shall come to the knowledge of said mortgagee (or trustee) and, unless permitted by this policy, it shall be noted thereon and the mortgagee (or trustee) shall, on demand, pay the premium for such increased hazard for the term of the use thereof, otherwise this policy shall be null and void.

This Company reserves the right to cancel this policy at any time as provided by its terms, but in such case this policy shall continue in force for the benefit only of the mortgagee (or trustee) for 10 days after notice to the mortgagee (or trustee) of such cancellation and shall then cease, and this Company shall have the right, on like notice, to cancel this agreement.

Whenever the Company shall pay the mortgagee (or trustee) any sum for loss under this policy and shall claim that, as to the mortgagor or owner, no liability therefor existed, this Company shall, to the extent of such payment, be thereupon legally subrogated to all the rights of the party to whom such payment shall be made, under all securities held as collateral to the mortgage debt, or may, at its option, pay to the mortgagee (or trustee) the whole principal due or to grow due on the mortgage with interest, and shall thereupon receive a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and of all such other securities; but no subrogation shall impair the right of the mortgagee (or trustee) to recover the full amount of said mortgagee's (or trustee's) claim.

Generally, there are two types of mortgage clauses. One is the loss-payable or open mortgage clause. The other is the union or standard mortgage clause.

The ordinary mortgage or loss-payable clause merely provides in effect that the proceeds of the policy shall be paid first to the mortgagee as his interest may appear; but the so-called "standard" or "union" mortgage clause is somewhat more specific, in that it also provides that the mortgagee shall be protected against loss from any act or neglect of the mortgagor or owner, so that it shall not defeat the insurance so far as the interest of the mortgagee is concerned.

10A Couch on Insurance 2d Sec. 42:682 (Rev. ed. 1982). See also Fulwiler v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 59 N.M. 366, 285 P.2d 140 (1955).

Because the mortgage clause here provides that "this insurance, as to the interest of the mortgagee (or trustee) * * * shall not be invalidated by any act or neglect of the mortgagor or owner" it is a standard mortgage clause.

1) The plaintiffs' appeal.

The plaintiffs contend that summary judgment for Utah Mortgage was incorrect. Summary judgment is proper only when there are no triable issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. NMSA 1978, Civ.P.R. 56(c) (Repl.Pamp.1980); Goodman v. Brock, 83 N.M. 789, 498 P.2d 676 (1972).

The plaintiffs, relying on the mortgage clause, argue that Utah Mortgage had a duty to notify Safeco of the change in ownership. The trial court granted Utah Mortgage's motion for summary judgment holding that the mortgage clause would require Utah Mortgage to give notice before it could recover, but that under the clause Utah Mortgage was under no duty to do anything on behalf of the mortgagor-plaintiffs. We agree.

A standard...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Shea v. H.S. Pickrell Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • December 15, 1987
    ...state of facts provable under the claim. Johnson v. Francke, 105 N.M. 564, 734 P.2d 804 (Ct.App.1987); Nassar v. Utah Mortgage & Loan Corp., 100 N.M. 419, 671 P.2d 667 (Ct.App.1983). In ruling upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we assume ......
  • Butcher v. Gilroy
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • October 14, 1987
    ...F.2d 1319, 1320 (10th Cir.1977); see also Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg, 139 Ariz. 184, 677 P.2d 1292 (1984); Nassar v. Utah Mortgage & Loan Corp., 100 N.M. 419, 671 P.2d 667 (1983). In October 1972, the Butchers and Gilroy stipulated to the entry of a written settlement judgment. The agreem......
  • Costanzo v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • October 1, 2014
    ...contract between the mortgagee and the insurance company." Florists' Mut., 2005 WL 3664325, at *5 (citing Nassar v. Utah Mortg. & Loan Corp., 671 P.2d 667, 670 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983)); see also Ingersoll-Rand, 771 F.2d at 913 ("There are accordingly in substance two contracts of insurance, th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT