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 case involves a class action lawsuit filed by several plaintiffs who were injured by an Allstate-insured party. The plaintiffs alleged that Allstate Insurance Company and its claims manager, Jose Cornejo, violated the Trade Practices and Frauds Act (TPFA) by engaging in unfair claims settlement practices, such as making unreasonably low settlement offers and refusing to negotiate, which forced claimants to litigate their personal injury claims (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: The court dismissed the claims against Jose Cornejo, ruling that he was not personally liable under the TPFA, and dismissed claims by one plaintiff, Ramon Gallegos, as time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations (paras 4-5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that Cornejo, as a manager of insurance adjusters, should be held personally liable under the TPFA and that the six-year statute of limitations for written contracts should apply to TPFA claims (paras 3, 27).
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that Cornejo was not an "insurer" or "agent" under the TPFA and that the four-year "catch-all" statute of limitations applied to TPFA claims, rendering Gallegos's claims time-barred (paras 3-4, 27).

Legal Issues

• Can a managerial employee, such as Jose Cornejo, be held personally liable under the TPFA?
• What statute of limitations applies to claims brought under the TPFA?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of TPFA claims against Cornejo for three plaintiffs whose claims arose after the 2001 amendment to the TPFA.
• The Court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Cornejo for three plaintiffs whose claims arose before the amendment.
• The Court affirmed the dismissal of all claims by Ramon Gallegos as time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations (paras 26, 45-46).

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry J. (Kennedy and Vigil JJ. concurring):

• Liability of Cornejo under the TPFA: The Court held that the TPFA's definition of "insurer" includes "persons" engaged in insurance-related activities, such as adjusters and managerial employees. The 2001 amendment to the TPFA broadened the scope of liability to include individuals like Cornejo. However, this liability only applies to claims arising after the amendment's effective date of July 1, 2002 (paras 7-25).

• Statute of Limitations: The Court determined that the four-year "catch-all" statute of limitations under NMSA 1978, § 37-1-4, applies to TPFA claims. The Court rejected the argument that the six-year statute for written contracts or the three-year statute for personal injuries should apply, reasoning that TPFA claims are statutory in nature and not contractual or tortious (paras 27-44).

• Application to Plaintiffs: The Court found that only three plaintiffs—Roxanne Martinez, Orlando Sena, and Christa Okon—had actionable claims against Cornejo because their claims arose after the 2001 amendment. The claims of the other plaintiffs, including Gallegos, were either time-barred or arose before the amendment (paras 25-26).

The Court emphasized that the TPFA's purpose is to promote ethical settlement practices in the insurance industry and that holding individuals accountable under the TPFA aligns with this legislative intent (paras 22-23).