Spurlin v. Paul Brown Agency, Inc.

Decision Date12 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 8730,8730
Citation1969 NMSC 61,454 P.2d 963,80 N.M. 306
PartiesE. O. SPURLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL BROWN AGENCY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing the plaintiff's complaint alleging that the defendant negligently failed to obtain liability insurance covering a motor vehicle belonging to him on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

We summarize the complaint. In June, 1961, the appellee orally agreed to obtain liability insurance covering the vehicle in question. Thereafter, on December 3, 1962, the appellant's vehicle was involved in an accident with a vehicle owned by Virginia and O. R. Price, and the appellant immediately notified appellee of the accident. On December 7, 1962, appellee advised appellant that there was no insurance coverage on his vehicle.

On July 9, 1964, the Prices brought an action for damages against the appellant. On July 21, 1964, the appellant made demand upon the appellee to defend the suit against him, which appellee refused. Subsequently appellant settled with the Prices and, on June 8, 1967, instituted this action against appellee for damages for its negligent failure to obtain the policy. Appellee pleaded contributory negligence and the statute of limitations as a defense.

The pertinent provisions of the applicable statutes, §§ 23--1--1 and 23--1--4, N.M.S.A.1953, read:

'23--1--1. The following suits or actions may be brought within the time hereinafter limited, respectively, after their causes accrue, and not afterwards, except when otherwise specially provided.'

'23--1--4. * * * all other actions not herein otherwise provided for and specified within four (4) years.'

The accrual date of the cause of action is the decisive question to be determined. The trial court found that 'the alleged oral contract of insurance or the alleged negligence of defendant to obtain insurance for the plaintiff, which is the basis of plaintiff's action occurred in June, 1961,' and concluded that the cause of action having accrued more than four years prior to the commencement of the action, the complaint should be dismissed. It is thus not clear whether the trial court treated the action as one for breach of contract, or an action for negligence sounding in tort. However, since the parties briefed the question as though the action was based on negligence, we will so treat it.

Appellant contends that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until he was sued by the Prices on June 9, 1964. He argues that appellee's negligent failure to obtain the insurance policy did not give rise to an action for damages until injury was sustained as a result of such negligent act. In other words, he contends that until the suit, which charged him with liability, was filed, no cause of action existed. Appellee on the other hand contends that the statute of limitations began to run in June, 1961, the date of the accident, or, at the very latest, on December 7, 1962, when appellant was advised that there was no insurance coverage on the automobile.

We agree with appellant. Liability insurance does not purport to provide compensation for injuries, but only to protect the insured against legal liability. While the statute of limitations began to run when the cause of action accrued, there was no cause of action for negligence until there had been a resulting injury. Jensen v. Allen, 63 N.M. 407, 320 P.2d 1016. The cause of action arising out of the negligent failure to obtain liability coverage could only accrue when legal liability materialized June 9, 1964, when the Price suit was filed, and this only because a policy of insurance such as appellee allegedly failed to furnish would have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Peralta v. Martinez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • April 12, 1977
    ...the wrongful act, is that there is no cause of action for malpractice until there has been a resulting injury. Spurlin v. Paul Brown Agency, Inc., 80 N.M. 306, 454 P.2d 963 (1969). A wrong without damage or damage without wrong does not amount to a cause of action. Jensen v. Allen,63 N.M. 4......
  • Carroll v. Los Alamos Nat'l Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • March 20, 2010
    ...Pub. Schs. Ins. Auth. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 145 N.M. 316, 327-28, 198 P.3d 342, 353-54 (2008); Spurlin v. Paul Brown Agency, Inc., 80 N.M. 306, 307, 454 P.2d 963, 964 (1969)(“[T]here was no cause of action for negligence until there had been a resulting ANALYSIS The Defendants move ......
  • Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 18, 2018
    ...1065 (Fla. 2001) ; Hickox v. Stover , 551 So.2d 259, 264 (Ala. 1989) ; Chiapetta , 521 A.2d at 700 ; Spurlin v. Paul Brown Agency, Inc. , 80 N.M. 306, 454 P.2d 963 (1969) ; see also, LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Insurance Agency , 152 Ohio St. 3d 517, 2018-Ohio-334, 98 N.E.3d 241, ¶ 4......
  • Montanez v. Cass
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • December 2, 1975
    ...occurs from the prior negligent act of another. Chisholm v. Scott, 86 N.M. 707, 526 P.2d 1300 (Ct.App.1974); Spurlin v. Paul Brown Agency, Inc., 80 N.M. 306, 454 P.2d 963 (1969). The same rule applies in personal injury In the instant case, the cause of action accrued on November 30, 1970, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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