Preview:

1 ELLIS V. CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANIES, 2007-NMCA-123, 142 N.M. 497, 167 P.3d 945 FREMONT F. ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANIES, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 23,491 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2007-NMCA-123, 142 N.M. 497, 167 P.3d 945 June 27, 2007, Filed INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY, James A. Hall, District Judge Certiorari Denied, No. 30,606, September 11, 2007. Released for publication September 26, 2007. COUNSEL VanAmberg, Rogers, Yepa & Abeita, LLP, Ronald J. VanAmberg, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee Butt, Thornton & Baehr, PC, Paul T. Yarbrough, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant JUDGES MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR: JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Chief Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge AUTHOR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE OPINION

BUSTAMANTE, Judge. {1} This is an insurance case in which the parties dispute, among other things, the scope of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. Defendant issued an automobile insurance policy to the personal representative of an estate to cover vehicles that were estate assets. The overarching question throughout the litigation has been whether Plaintiff, who is the personal representative's son, was entitled to UM benefits under the terms of the policy. Over time, Defendant raised several theories in response to that question. Finally, at the close of an evidentiary hearing and following the district court's rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment, Defendant asserted a new theory that Plaintiff's father could not, in his fiduciary capacity as the personal representative of the estate, have a household or family member that would be entitled to UM coverage under the policy. The district court requested briefing on Defendant's new theory, but later ruled in a partial judgment that the theory was untimely raised. In the same partial judgment, the district court held that, under the particular circumstances of this case, Plaintiff should be viewed as a "named insured," but also certified the case for interlocutory appeal because the case involved "a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground

Download 2007-NMCA-123.pdf

New Mexico Law