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 Plaintiff, an insured entity, sought a declaratory judgment to establish that the Defendant, its insurer, was obligated to defend and indemnify it under an insurance policy. This arose from a prior lawsuit alleging misconduct by the Plaintiff in managing and developing investment property. The Plaintiff also sought damages for breach of contract, including costs incurred in defending the prior lawsuit and prosecuting the current case (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, November 1, 1991: The court ruled that the Defendant was liable to indemnify the Plaintiff for defense and settlement costs in the prior lawsuit but reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of damages and apportion liability among other insurers (paras 4-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellee (Valley Improvement Association): Argued that the Defendant breached its contractual obligations by failing to defend and indemnify it in the prior lawsuit and sought damages for defense costs, settlement payments, and attorney's fees (paras 2-4).
- Defendant-Appellant (Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company): Contended that the judgment was not final and appealable because the damages were not quantified, and liability apportionment among other insurers was unresolved (paras 4, 9-10).
Legal Issues
- Was the district court's judgment final and appealable despite the lack of quantified damages and unresolved apportionment of liability? (paras 1, 7-9).
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of a final judgment (para 18).
Reasons
Per Frost J. (Baca and Franchini JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the district court's judgment was not final because it failed to quantify the damages awarded to the Plaintiff and expressly retained jurisdiction to determine the apportionment of liability among the Defendant and other insurers. The Court emphasized that under New Mexico law, a judgment must resolve all substantive issues, including damages, to be considered final and appealable. The inclusion of attorney's fees incurred in the prior lawsuit as part of the damages further supported the need for quantification before appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, allowing the district court to finalize the judgment before appellate review (paras 7-18).