AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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, a construction company, entered into a contract with the Defendant, the University of New Mexico (UNM), to construct a water-line loop as part of a utility upgrade project on UNM's campus. The project required excavation near underground facilities, such as utility lines, governed by New Mexico's "One-Call Statute." A dispute arose over whether UNM or the Plaintiff was responsible for locating and marking the underground facilities, with the Plaintiff claiming delays and additional costs due to UNM's failure to mark the facilities (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, Bernalillo County: The court compelled arbitration of the parties' claims. Following arbitration, the court confirmed the arbitration award, rejecting the Plaintiff's motion to vacate the award (paras 5-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that UNM's duty under the One-Call Statute to locate and mark underground facilities was non-delegable and that the arbitration award allowing delegation violated public policy. The Plaintiff sought to vacate the award (paras 6-7, 10).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the contract unambiguously delegated the responsibility for locating and marking underground facilities to the Plaintiff and that the arbitration award should be upheld (paras 5-6).
• Amici Curiae: Supported the Plaintiff, arguing that the arbitration award violated public policy and New Mexico's Anti-Indemnification Statute, and that delegation of One-Call Statute duties must be clear and unambiguous (paras 7, 28-29).

Legal Issues

• Whether the arbitration award violated New Mexico public policy by allowing delegation of duties under the One-Call Statute.
• Whether the arbitrator exceeded their powers under the Uniform Arbitration Act by permitting delegation of statutory duties.
• Whether a judicially created public policy exception to the Uniform Arbitration Act should be recognized.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award (para 30).

Reasons

Per Fry J. (Pickard and Castillo JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to establish a public policy basis to vacate the arbitration award. The One-Call Statute does not explicitly prohibit delegation of duties, and no clear public policy against delegation was identified (paras 10, 24-26).
• The arbitrator did not exceed their powers under the Uniform Arbitration Act, as the issue of delegation was within the scope of the arbitration agreement and was fairly decided (paras 12-19).
• The Court declined to adopt a judicially created public policy exception to the Uniform Arbitration Act, emphasizing New Mexico's strong public policies favoring freedom of contract and the finality of arbitration awards (paras 20-27).
• The Court did not address arguments raised by Amici regarding the Anti-Indemnification Statute and the clarity of delegation provisions, as these issues were not raised by the parties (paras 28-29).