Preview:

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. V. BALDONADO, 2003-NMCA-096, 134 N.M. 197, 75 P.3d 413
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee,
v.
CHRIS T. BALDONADO, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant.

Docket No. 22,883
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
2003-NMCA-096, 134 N.M. 197, 75 P.3d 413
June 12, 2003, Filed

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Ted Baca, District Judge.
Released for Publication August 19, 2003. Certiorari Denied, No. 28,141, August 4, 2003.
COUNSEL
Rudolph A. Lucero, Ruth Fuess, Miller, Stratvert & Torgerson, P.A., Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee. Robert J. Mroz, Gregory D. Steinman, Madison, Harbour, Mroz & Brennan, P.A., Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

JUDGES
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge. WE CONCUR: LYNN PICKARD, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge AUTHOR: JONATHAN B. SUTIN.

OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
{1}  Appellant Chris T. Baldonado was shot by Eusebio Michael Aldana and the issue on appeal is whether State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is liable to Baldonado under the uninsured motorist and medical pay provisions of policies issued to Baldonado's aunt that covered relatives living in her household. For purposes of this appeal, we assume Baldonado fits this description. Two vehicles were stopped at an intersection.  Baldonado was a passenger in one vehicle. Aldana was a passenger in the other vehicle.  Baldonado exited the vehicle he was in and walked toward the other vehicle to confront its occupants. Shots were fired by Aldana. As Baldonado retreated, he was hit by one or more shots.  The district court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm. We affirm, holding there was no evidence on which either the owner or operator of the other car could be held liable to Baldonado; therefore, State Farm was not liable under its policies.
BACKGROUND
The Shooting
{2}  Aldana and two friends were cruising Central Avenue in Albuquerque, New Mexico in a Chevrolet Beretta. The car was owned by Aldana's father.  Aldana was driving at first, but at some point he moved to the front passenger seat and Joan (a male) Robaina began driving. Robaina's younger brother sat in the back seat.
{3}  Baldonado and two friends were also cruising Central Avenue.  They were in an Isuzu Rodeo. John Lucero, the owner of the Rodeo, was driving it. Tim Cunningham sat in the front passenger seat and Baldonado sat in the right rear passenger seat.
{4}  The occupants of these two vehicles did not know one another.  At one point, following an earlier verbal altercation, both vehicles met in the parking lot of an Albertson's store located at Coors Boulevard and Central Avenue. There, the Beretta and another vehicle were chasing the Rodeo around the parking lot. At some point in the vicinity of the parking lot, someone from the Beretta threw a bottle at the Rodeo which may have hit it and left a small dent.
{5} The Rodeo occupants left the parking lot area and the Beretta followed. The two vehicles ended up side by side at the intersection of Coors Boulevard and Central Avenue at a red light. The occupants of the Beretta were laughing at the Rodeo's occupants because of the apparent damage from the bottle.  Baldonado got out of the Rodeo and walked toward the Beretta to confront its occupants and ask why they threw the bottle. Baldonado knew that a physical fight could break out. He thought there was going to be a fight.  He was mad because the Beretta occupants had thrown beer bottles. As Baldonado walked around the back of the Rodeo, Aldana, seated in the front passenger seat of the Beretta, opened fire. In retreat, Baldonado was hit by a second or third shot.  Aldana told Robaina to leave and the Beretta sped away. As the Rodeo was in route to take Baldonado to the hospital, the two vehicles again met, and more shots were fired from the Beretta in the direction of the Rodeo.  Shortly thereafter, the police apprehended Aldana and Robaina.  Baldonado was paralyzed from the navel down as a result of being shot by Aldana, who was convicted of the shooting.
Baldonado's Points on Appeal
{6}  Baldonado's aunt, Sadie Baldonado, had two State Farm policies.  The policies contained uninsured motorist and medical payment coverages. Baldonado contends the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing his claims against State Farm, and also erred in denying his motion for summary judgment against State Farm.  He argues that he was an insured and covered under the State Farm policies, the shooting was an accident as defined in the policies, the shooting arose out of the use of an uninsured vehicle, the Beretta, and he has the right to recover against the owner or operator of the Beretta.
{7}  State Farm contends that Baldonado is not legally entitled to recover from either the owner or operator of the Beretta, that his injury did not "arise out of the use" of an uninsured vehicle, and that he is not entitled to medical payment coverage.  With regard to Baldonado's motion for summary judgment, State Farm asserts that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Baldonado was an insured under the policies.
{8}  As to uninsured motorist coverage, we address only the issue whether Baldonado is, in the words of the policy, "legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle," the Beretta.  Our decision that he is not disposes of that issue.  Based on this holding, we need not and do not address the issue whether the court erred in denying Baldonado's motion for summary judgment.  We also hold that Baldonado is not entitled to medical payment coverage.
DISCUSSION

Posture of Case on Appeal and Standard of Review
{9}  Summary judgment was entered, but Baldonado has nevertheless raised purported issues of fact on appeal, without, either below or on appeal, requesting denial of summary judgment on the ground that genuine issues of material fact exist.  We therefore entertain the appeal and decide the issues on the basis that material facts are not in dispute.
{10}  Where an appellant does not assert the existence of a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment, "our task is to determine whether the district court correctly applied the law to the facts."  Gonzales v. Allstate Ins. Co., 122 N.M. 137, 139, 921 P.2d 944, 946 (1996). "To the extent our review involves . . . the application of law to undisputed facts, the review is de novo." Grogan v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2003-NMCA-033,

Download 2003-NMCA-096.pdf

New Mexico Law