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 was a passenger in a Hyundai vehicle on April 12, 1987, when the vehicle was fired upon by occupants of a pickup truck. The Plaintiff exited the vehicle to obtain the license plate number of the pickup and was shot in the leg while returning to the Hyundai. The pickup truck and its occupants were uninsured (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, September 3, 1991: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, compelling arbitration or declaring the claim compensable under the Hyundai's uninsured motorist policy (para 4).
• Supreme Court of New Mexico, August 24, 1992: Reversed the district court's decision, holding that the Plaintiff did not "occupy" the Hyundai for purposes of coverage (para 4).
• District Court, (date unspecified): Dismissed the Plaintiff's claim against his own insurer, Cigna, for failure to bring suit within the six-year statute of limitations (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the statute of limitations for his claim against Cigna began to run only after his claim against the Hyundai's insurer was adjudicated, as Cigna provided secondary uninsured motorist coverage under the terms of its policy (paras 5, 8-9).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the shooting incident, April 12, 1987, and that the Plaintiff's claim was time-barred (paras 5, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions applies to claims under an uninsured motorist policy.
• When the statute of limitations begins to run for a claim under an uninsured motorist policy (paras 1, 6-7).

Disposition

• The six-year statute of limitations for contract actions applies to the Plaintiff's claim (para 10).
• The district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings to determine when the Plaintiff's claim against Cigna accrued under the terms of the uninsured motorist policy (para 10).

Reasons

Per Franchini J. (Minzner C.J., Baca J., and Serna J. concurring):

• The Court affirmed that the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions applies to claims under uninsured motorist policies, aligning with the majority view in other jurisdictions. This is because the liability of the insurer depends on the insurance contract, making the contract limitation period applicable (paras 6-7).
• The Court rejected the district court's conclusion that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the shooting incident. Instead, it held that the accrual date depends on the terms of the uninsured motorist policy. Specifically, if the policy required the Plaintiff to exhaust claims against the Hyundai's insurer before pursuing Cigna, the statute of limitations would not begin to run until the Plaintiff's claim against the Hyundai's insurer was resolved (paras 8-9).
• The Court noted that the uninsured motorist policy was not entered into the record, making it impossible to determine the exact accrual date. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings to consider the terms of the policy and determine when the Plaintiff's claim against Cigna arose (paras 9-10).