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 dry cleaning and tuxedo rental business, relocated to a new building and hired a general contractor to prepare the premises. Subcontractors improperly connected the Plaintiff's utilities to meters on the Defendants' adjacent property. The Plaintiff used these connections for two years until the Defendants revoked access, causing business interruptions and additional costs to establish independent utility connections (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Plaintiff's complaints were dismissed multiple times for failure to state a claim, culminating in a dismissal with prejudice against all Defendants except two who did not respond to the complaints (paras 7-10).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued it was a third-party beneficiary of the subcontractor's agreement with the general contractor and that the Defendants improperly revoked the utility license without notice, causing damages (paras 1, 7-10).
- Defendant-Appellee Advanced Mechanical, Inc.: Contended there was no privity of contract with the Plaintiff and denied the Plaintiff's third-party beneficiary claim (paras 7-8, 11-13).
- Defendants-Appellees Tinley and Investment Company of the Southwest (ICSW): Asserted they had no duty to allow continued use of the utility connections or to provide notice before revoking the license (paras 8-9, 19-22).
Legal Issues
- Was the Plaintiff a third-party beneficiary of the subcontractor's agreement with the general contractor?
- Did the Defendants have a duty to notify the Plaintiff before revoking the utility license?
- Did the Plaintiff's complaint sufficiently allege a prima facie tort claim against one of the Defendants?
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed as to ICSW for lack of a final order (para 2).
- The dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against Advanced Mechanical, Inc. was reversed (para 25).
- The dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against Tinley was reversed in part, allowing the prima facie tort claim to proceed (para 25).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Apodaca and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Third-Party Beneficiary Claim: The court held that the Plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged it was a third-party beneficiary of the subcontractor's agreement with the general contractor. The dismissal was premature as determining third-party beneficiary status required further factual inquiry into the terms and circumstances of the contract, even if it was oral (paras 13-17).
Utility License Revocation: The court found that a license is generally revocable at will without notice. However, notice may be required to allow the licensee to remove personal property. Since the Plaintiff did not allege it was prevented from removing personal property, the claims based on property law concepts were properly dismissed (paras 19-23).
Prima Facie Tort Claim: The court determined that the Plaintiff's allegations of malice and intent to harm by Tinley were sufficient to raise material factual issues, precluding summary judgment on this claim (para 24).
Final Order: The appeal against ICSW was dismissed because the district court had not resolved ICSW's counterclaim, rendering the judgment non-final as to ICSW (para 2).