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 Risk Management Division (Risk Management), a governmental agency responsible for administering the public liability fund, issued a Certificate of Coverage to San Miguel County, which included Endorsement 14. This endorsement excluded coverage for attorney fees in mandamus actions. A mandamus action was filed by the County against the sheriff, who counterclaimed for attorney fees. The County sought a declaratory judgment against Risk Management, arguing that the exclusion in Endorsement 14 was invalid due to non-compliance with statutory rulemaking procedures (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Miguel County: Denied Risk Management's motion for summary judgment, holding that the exclusion of coverage for mandamus actions in Endorsement 14 was potentially invalid due to improper rulemaking procedures (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Risk Management): Argued that Endorsement 14 validly excluded coverage for attorney fees in mandamus actions and that compliance with statutory rulemaking procedures was discretionary. It contended that the exclusion was consistent with the Tort Claims Act, which does not require coverage for mandamus actions (paras 5, 8).
- Appellee (San Miguel County): Claimed that Endorsement 14 was invalid because it was not promulgated in accordance with statutory rulemaking procedures. The County argued that Risk Management was obligated to provide coverage for attorney fees under the Tort Claims Act and related statutes (paras 5, 9).
Legal Issues
- Was Risk Management's exclusion of coverage for attorney fees in mandamus actions valid under the Tort Claims Act and related statutes?
- Did Risk Management's failure to follow statutory rulemaking procedures render Endorsement 14 invalid?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of Risk Management (para 24).
Reasons
Per Frost J. (Baca C.J. and Ransom J. concurring):
- The Court found that the Tort Claims Act does not require coverage for mandamus actions, as such actions are not claims for damages and were traditionally not barred by sovereign immunity. The Act is limited to claims for damages and does not extend to mandamus actions (paras 13-17).
- Risk Management's denial of coverage for mandamus actions was a ministerial act required by the Tort Claims Act and not a discretionary decision subject to rulemaking procedures. Therefore, Endorsement 14 was valid despite the lack of formal rulemaking (paras 10, 22).
- The Court emphasized that Risk Management's responsibilities under the Tort Claims Act are limited to covering liabilities explicitly waived by the Act, which does not include mandamus actions (paras 18-21).
- The Court concluded that the County was not entitled to reimbursement for attorney fees incurred in the mandamus action and that Risk Management's motion for summary judgment should have been granted (para 24).