Marquez v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 78-543
| Decision Date | 02 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-543,78-543 |
| Citation | 41 Colo.App. 478,590 P.2d 75 |
| Parties | Johnnie E. MARQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Defendant. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Norton Frickey & Associates, Dan W. Corson, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Burnett, Horan & Hilgers, Mike Hilgers, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff, Johnnie E. Marquez, appeals the district court's judgment in favor of defendant Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company. We affirm the judgment as modified.
Plaintiff brought an action in district court against Donna Marie Wright, alleging that Wright negligently caused an automobile accident in which plaintiff suffered personal injuries. Wright had $15,000 of liability insurance coverage with defendant American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin. American stipulated that the accident was proximately caused by the negligence of Wright, and it deposited the $15,000 into the registry of the court.
Meanwhile, plaintiff's own insurer, defendant Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company, paid plaintiff $12,023.38 in personal injury protection (P.I.P.) benefits under the no fault provisions of plaintiff's policy. Concerned that Prudential might seek to recoup this amount by exercising its right of subrogation to the $15,000 deposited with the court, plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action against both American and Prudential.
The district court ruled that, under the subrogation provision of plaintiff's policy, Prudential was entitled to full reimbursement. That provision states:
"In the event of any payment to any person under this coverage: The company shall be entitled to the extent of such payment to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment that may result from the exercise of any rights of recovery of such person against any person or organization legally responsible for the bodily injury because of which such payment is made; and the company shall have a lien to the extent of such payment, notice of which may be given to the person or organization causing such bodily injury, his agent, his insurer or a court having jurisdiction in the matter. . . ."
The district court therefore awarded $12,023.38 of the $15,000 to Prudential, and the balance of $2,976.62 to plaintiff.
The parties stipulated that plaintiff's total damages, including disability, past and future pain and suffering, past and future medical bills, and past and future loss of income, are worth approximately $30,000. Plaintiff argues that by permitting Prudential to recoup the P.I.P. payments which it made, the district court's judgment leaves plaintiff uncompensated to the extent of $15,000, a result so inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of the no fault statute that the provision in plaintiff's insurance policy permitting the subrogation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marquez v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co.
...curiae, J. Richard Barnes, Ins. Com'r. ERICKSON, Justice. We granted certiorari to review Marquez v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 41 Colo.App. 478, 590 P.2d 75 (1978). We reverse the court of appeals and return this case with directions that the cause be remanded to the......