This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A business selling gravel and concrete in New Mexico (Redi-Mix) was sued for wrongful death after one of its employees caused a fatal auto accident. Redi-Mix sought coverage from its insurer (Scottsdale Insurance Company), which denied the claim, citing a policy exclusion for bodily injury arising from auto use. Redi-Mix then filed a lawsuit against Scottsdale for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, bad faith, and statutory violations (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, December 28, 2004: Granted Scottsdale's motion for summary judgment on declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims and denied Redi-Mix's motion (para 3).
- District Court, February 17, 2006: Granted Scottsdale's motion for summary judgment on remaining claims (para 3).
- District Court, June 5, 2006: Denied Redi-Mix's motion for reconsideration (para 3).
- Court of Appeals, October 24, 2006: Dismissed Redi-Mix's appeal, holding that the motion for reconsideration was automatically denied after 30 days under Section 39-1-1 and Rule 1-059(D) (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (Redi-Mix): Argued that its motion for reconsideration should be treated as a Rule 1-059(E) motion to alter or amend a judgment, which is not subject to automatic denial under Section 39-1-1 or Rule 1-059(D) (paras 5, 7).
- Respondent (Scottsdale Insurance Company): Contended that the motion for reconsideration could also fall under Section 39-1-1, making it subject to automatic denial after 30 days (para 7).
Legal Issues
- Whether a motion filed under Rule 1-059(E) is subject to automatic denial under Section 39-1-1 or Rule 1-059(D) (para 5).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further consideration of Redi-Mix's appeal (para 18).
Reasons
Per Serna J. (Chávez CJ., Maes, and Bosson JJ. concurring):
- The Court held that Redi-Mix's motion for reconsideration was properly classified as a Rule 1-059(E) motion to alter or amend a judgment because it was filed within ten days of the judgment, consistent with prior case law and federal interpretations of similar rules (paras 7-10).
- Rule 1-059(E) does not contain an automatic denial provision, unlike Rule 1-059(D). The plain language of Rule 1-059(E) indicates that it is not subject to automatic denial (para 12).
- Section 39-1-1's automatic denial provision does not apply to Rule 1-059(E) motions, as clarified by amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006 and 2007, which superseded Section 39-1-1 for post-judgment motions (paras 13-16).
- The Court overruled prior precedent in Beneficial Finance Corp. v. Morris, which had incorrectly applied Section 39-1-1 to Rule 1-059(E) motions (para 17).
- The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Redi-Mix's appeal based on the automatic denial of its motion for reconsideration (para 18).