Title: BERGH v ROGERS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12951
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 19, 1975

No. 12951 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 BEATRICE ANN BERGH, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - JOHN C. ROGERS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C. 33. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : McNamer and Thompson, Billings, Montana Charles R. Cashmorc argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Keefer and Roybal, Billings, Montana Neil S. Keefer argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: May 7, 1975 Decided: j1j& 19 lc~qs F i l e d : &tJ!i L G ,37L, M r . Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. This appeal a r i s e s from a negligence action f i l e d i n the d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County, i n November 1972. Plaintiff Beatrice Ann Bergh alleged damage t o her vehicle resulting from an intersection collision proximately caused by defendant John C. ~ o g e r s ' negligent operation of h i s automobile. Defendant ans- wered and counterclaimed, alleging the accident was proximately caused by p l a i n t i f f ' s own negligence. p l a i n t i f f ' s insurer Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, hereinafter referred t o a s Mountain West, paid f o r the repair of a l l damage t o her vehicle, other than a $25 deductible. Although Mountain West thereby became subrogated t o a major portion of p l a i n t i f f ' s claim, it was not named a s a party p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s action. A t the p r e t r i a l conference defendant f i l e d a " ~ o t i o n t o Prohibit the Introduction of Evidence by Plaintiff" based on f a i l u r e t o comply with the "real party i n interest" requirement of Rule 17(a), M.R.Civ.P. That motion was granted and p l a i n t i f f ' s subsequent motion f o r leave t o amend the complaint by joining Mountain West a s a p l a i n t i f f was denied. The d i s t r i c t court then granted defendant's motion f o r dismissal. That dismissal operates a s a bar t o further l i t i g a t i o n since the s t a t u t e of limitations has run on t h i s claim. This appeal, taken from the d i s t r i c t court's rulings and i t s f i n a l judgment i n favor of defendant, centers on a single issue: Did the d i s t r i c t court e r r i n denying p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r leave t o join an additional party p l a i n t i f f ? Consideration of that issue necessarily involves Rule 17(a), M.R.Civ.P., which provides: "Every action s h a l l be prosecuted i n t h e name of the r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t . * * * N o action s h a l l be dismissed on the ground t h a t it i s not prosecuted i n the name of t h e r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t u n t i l a reasonable time has been allowed a f t e r objection f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of commencement of the action by, o r joinder o r substitution o f , t h e r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t ; and such r a t i f i c a t i o n , joinder, o r substitution s h a l l have t h e same e f f e c t a s i f t h e action had been commenced i n the name of the r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t . 1 I The p a r t i e s here agree t h a t Mountain West was a r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t and t h i s Court's recent decision i n S t a t e ex r e l . M o n t . Slovak v. D i s t r i c t Court, , 534 P.2d 850, 32 St. Rep. 420, compels t h a t conclusion. Rule 17(a), M.R.Civ.P., is therefore c l e a r l y applicable. The Advisory Committee's notes accompanying Rule 17(a) a r e helpful i n determining the proper construction t o be given the language contained therein. The Advisory Committee's note t o t h e September 29, 1967, amendment t o Rule 17(a), M.R.Civ.P., s t a t e s : "The provision t h a t no action s h a l l be dismissed on the ground t h a t it is not prosecuted i n the name of the r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t u n t i l a reasonable time has been allowed a f t e r the objection has been raised f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n , e t c . , keeps pace with modem decisions which, i n the i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e , a r e inclined t o be lenient when an honest mistake has been made i n choosing the party i n whose name the action is filed." That language c l e a r l y draws on the comments t o the comparable federal r u l e which noted t h a t the amendment was an attempt "to codify i n broad t e r m s the salutary principle of Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U.S. 648 (1953), and Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613 (D.C.Cir.1963)." Advisory Committee Notes t o 1966 Amendment t o Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule 17(a), 12 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, p. 398. Our review of the language of the r u l e , t h e advisory committee notes t o both the federal and Montana r u l e s , and the cases c i t e d therein lead us t o conclude t h e d i s t r i c t court here erred i n refusing t o allow joinder of a r e a l party i n interest-- the subrogated insurance company, Mountain West. The f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n here is similar t o t h a t before the court i n Link Aviation Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613, 615, when it considered t h e amendment t o Rule 17(a) and applied it t o those f a c t s by holding: "* * * though brought i n the name of the insureds, t h i s s u i t was not a n u l l i t y , since, a s we hold, it was brought f o r the use of the r e a l p a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t , It was thus not so lacking i n v a l i d i t y a s t o furnish no support f o r a motion t o bring it i n t o compliance with Rule 17(a). Any other r u l e would be highly technical without meaningful purpose. The complaint alleged injury a t the hands of defendants. The s u i t was t o recover therefor, That the recovery, i f made, would inure not t o the benefit of the nominal p l a i n t i f f s , but t o t h a t of t h e insurers because they had made t h e p l a i n t i f f s whole, did not deprive the s u i t of a s t a t u s which enabled the insurers t o s u b s t i t u t e themselves a s p l a i n t i f f s and continue the s u i t i n t h e i r own names i n compldilnce with Rule 17(a). For us 'TO hold otherwise would be nothing l e s s than a narrow and ill-grounded construction of the r u l e s of c i v i l procedure not i n harmony with t h e i r i n t e n t and purpose. ' [Citing cases 1" The court reached t h a t holding even though t h e s t a t u t e of limitations had run on p l a i n t i f f s ' claim, similar t o the situa- t i o n here. p l a i n t i f f ' s motion here should have been granted by t h e d i s t r i c t court. Since t h e judgment entered herein was predicated, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , on t h e absence of a r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t , we reverse and remand f o r f u r t h e r proceedings consistent with t h i s opinion. J u s t i c e W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e (xJJ' JUS t i c e s . - h F -