This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case arises from a barroom altercation at a nightclub where the plaintiff was struck in the nose by another patron, resulting in injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the nightclub and its manager were negligent in failing to prevent the incident despite being informed of escalating tensions. The nightclub had an insurance policy that excluded coverage for assault and battery incidents (paras 1-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Found the nightclub and its manager jointly and severally liable for $5,000 in damages to the plaintiff. The court also issued a declaratory judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the insurance policy excluded coverage for the plaintiff's injuries (paras 1, 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendants-Appellants (Nightclub and Manager): Argued that the district court erred by failing to allocate fault to the patron who committed the assault and to the plaintiff herself. They also contended that the insurance policy should cover the plaintiff's damages, as they had requested coverage for assault and battery incidents (paras 6, 13).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Alleged that the nightclub and its manager were negligent in failing to prevent the altercation and sought damages for her injuries (paras 2-3).
- Evanston Insurance Company (Intervenor): Argued that the insurance policy explicitly excluded coverage for assault and battery incidents, including those arising from negligent supervision (para 5).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in failing to allocate fault to the patron who committed the assault and to the plaintiff herself (para 6).
- Whether the district court erred in concluding that the insurance policy excluded coverage for the plaintiff's injuries (para 12).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings (paras 1, 10, 25).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Montgomery C.J., Ransom, Franchini, and Frost JJ. concurring):
Comparative Fault: The court held that the district court erred in failing to allocate fault to the patron who committed the assault and to the plaintiff. Under New Mexico's comparative fault principles, liability should be apportioned among all parties whose actions contributed to the harm, including intentional tortfeasors and the plaintiff herself, if applicable. The court remanded the case for a determination of the respective fault percentages (paras 6-11).
Insurance Coverage: The court found that the insurance policy's assault and battery exclusion was clear but held that the insured had a reasonable expectation of coverage based on the representations made during the insurance transaction. The intermediaries involved in procuring the policy failed to adequately inform the insured about the exclusion. The court concluded that the insurer must provide coverage for the plaintiff's damages despite the exclusion (paras 12-25).