IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. 1:15-CV-00561-KK-WPL

JACOB McFARLAND, individually and d/b/a

EXPRESS FREIGHT SYSTEMS; JODEN
ROMERO, an individual;
and ALBERT QUIVER, an individual,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS ALBERT QUIVER AND JODEN ROMEROS
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
COME NOW Defendant, Nate Richard (hereinafter Richard), by and through their
undersigned attorneys, W. Christian Krankemann, Krankemann | Petersen, LLP, and hereby
Answers Plaintiffs Complaint for Declaratory Relief (Complaint), as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. Defendants
agree, upon information and belief, Defendant Jacob McFarland is a resident of Farmington, San
Juan County, New Mexico.

2.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same.

4.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the

Complaint.
5.
6.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint that

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, but are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
contained in paragraph 7 and therefore deny the same.
7.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the allegations contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same.
8.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint that a

substantial part of the events described in the Complaint took place in the State of New Mexico
but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11.
ANSWER TO GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
A.

Insurance Policy at Issue

9.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same, except
that Defendants do not deny that a copy of portions of the policy described is attached as Exhibit
A to the Complaint.
10.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 13-16 which describe

portions of the policy attached to the Complaint; however, Defendants dispute whether all
relevant portions of the policy are set forth in the Complaint.
B. Incident and Quivers Ensuing Demand

11.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint that on or

about February 4, 2015, Defendant McFarland was operating a 1999 Dodge Ram with an
attached trailer on Interstate 25 in New Mexico, but are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17 and therefore
deny the same.

12.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, assuming that
Plaintiff is referring to his actions on February 4, 2015.

13.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint that

Defendant McFarland was tailgating Quiver but are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations and therefore deny the same.

14.

In response to paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that an investigation was

conducted by the City of Bernalillo Police Department but are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of the Complaint and therefore deny the
same.

15.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 21 and 22 of the Complaint.

16.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint that

surveillance video exists, but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 and therefore deny the same.

17.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Complaint.

18.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint that Quiver
has sustained medical injuries, but are without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to whether Defendant McFarlands acts were intentional and therefore deny the
same.
19.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Complaint.

20.

In answer to paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff is seeking the
relief described, but deny the remaining allegations of the Complaint, particularly the allegations
that declaratory relief is available or appropriate and that the provisions of the policy are not
triggered.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Judgment)

21.

In Answer to paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendants reallege and incorporate herein

by reference their Answers to paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint as set forth above.

22.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint that the
policy is not triggered, but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 31 and therefore deny the same.

23.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 32 that Defendant McFarland was
tailgating Quiver but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
remaining allegations of paragraph 32 and therefore deny the same.

24.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

25.

Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 34 of the Complaint that, after the
verbal altercation, Defendant McFarland followed Quiver into the parking lot and struck
Defendant Quiver with Defendant McFarlands truck, but are without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 34 and therefore deny the
same.
26.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

27.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the
Complaint.

28.

To the extent that Defendants are required to answer the prayer for relief
contained in paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff is seeking the relief
outlined, but deny that it is entitled to the relief sought.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second Affirmative Defense
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint.
Third Affirmative Defense
There are factual issues in dispute which should be adjudicated in a parallel state court
proceeding currently pending in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Sandoval County,
captioned Albert Quiver and Joden Romero v. Jacob McFarland, individually and d/b/a Express
Freight Systems, Cause No. D-1329-CV-2015-01197 (the State Court Proceeding).
Fourth Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff relies on criminal charges brought against Defendant McFarland for its claim
that the policy excluded coverage for intentional and deliberate actions of Defendant McFarland.
Any reliance by Plaintiff on criminal charges is premature and speculative because there has

been no adjudication of the criminal charges against Defendant McFarland and he is entitled to a
presumption of innocence until those charges are resolved.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
The parties in the State Court Proceeding are entitled to a trial by jury of the complex
factual issues in dispute and this Court should dismiss the Complaint and decline to exercise
subject matter jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act in favor of the State Court
Proceeding.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
No federal issues are presented by the Complaint and the Court should defer to the State
Court Proceeding to resolve all issues because issues regarding insurance coverage are purely a
matter of state law and the State District Court can provide a comprehensive remedy regarding
the policy coverage as well as the underlying proceeding.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
The Complaint is not ripe for decision and the Court should dismiss, or in the alternative,
stay this proceeding until resolution of the factual issues in the pending State Court Proceeding
or criminal proceedings.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
A full and complete copy of the policy has not been supplied with the Complaint and
Defendants are unable to evaluate fully their defenses without having a complete copy of the
policy.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
The New Mexico Insurance Code and public policy strongly support providing insurance
coverage for the actions by Defendant McFarland set forth in the Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Court dismiss the Complaint, or in the
alternative, stay this proceeding until there is a determination of factual issues in the pending
State Court Proceeding, deny the relief sought in the Complaint, and enter such other and further
relief as it deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
THE HEMPHILL FIRM, P.C.
By: /s/Linda G. Hemphill
Linda G. Hemphill, Esq.
Margaret McLean, Esq.
P.O. Box 33136
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87594
(505) 986-8515
linda@hemphillfirm.com
margaret@hemphillfirm.com
Attorneys for Defendant Joden Romero
and Defendant Albert Quiver
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on the 17th day of August, 2015, I filed the foregoing electronically
through the CM/ECF system which caused the following parties or counsel to be served by
electronic means, as more fully reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing:
Meena Allen, Esq.
m.allen@srw-law.com
/s/Linda G. Hemphill, Esq.
Linda G. Hemphill