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 case arose from a dispute involving a title insurance policy issued by the Defendant to a nonparty who later transferred two lots to the Plaintiff. The Defendant failed to discover a restrictive covenant during its title search, which prevented the Plaintiff from selling one of the lots separately. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendant's representations that the title was clear and did not obtain additional title insurance (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on the Plaintiff's negligence claim but denied summary judgment on claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied contract, and unfair trade practices, allowing an interlocutory appeal (paras 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that Section 59A-30-11(A) of the New Mexico Statutes barred all claims arising from the title search, as the statute limits the duty of reasonable care in title searches to the benefit of title insurers only (paras 6, 9, 12).
- Appellee (Plaintiff): Contended that its claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied contract, and unfair trade practices were based on the Defendant's affirmative representations and duties outside the scope of the statutory duty to conduct a title search (paras 6, 13).
Legal Issues
- Does Section 59A-30-11(A) bar claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied contract, and unfair trade practices when those claims are based on duties outside the statutory duty to conduct a title search? (paras 7, 13).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied contract, and unfair trade practices (para 20).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Alarid and Robinson JJ. concurring):
The Court held that Section 59A-30-11(A) does not bar claims based on duties arising outside the statutory duty to conduct a title search. The statute limits the duty of reasonable care in title searches to the benefit of title insurers but does not preclude liability for other duties arising under common law or other statutes (paras 13-14).
The Plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied contract, and unfair trade practices were based on the Defendant's affirmative representations and actions during the property transfer, not on the title search itself (paras 13, 17). The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that these claims were effectively barred by the statute, emphasizing that the claims rested on separate duties (paras 13-14, 17).
The Court declined to address additional arguments raised by the Defendant on appeal, as they were not presented in the trial court (paras 15, 19).