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

• A sophisticated lawyer, Ted Gengler, hired Will Ferguson & Associates, Inc. (Ferguson), a law firm, under a contingency fee agreement to recover insurance proceeds from an insurer that denied his claim under an accidental death and dismemberment policy following his wife's death. After Ferguson's involvement, the insurer settled the claim in full, plus interest. Gengler then refused to pay Ferguson's fees, leading to Ferguson suing for breach of contract and winning a jury verdict (paras 1, 3-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Valerie A. Huling, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Ferguson): Argued that Gengler breached the contingency fee agreement by refusing to pay the agreed-upon fees after the successful recovery of insurance proceeds (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellant (Gengler): Contended that the district court erred by not recognizing that Ferguson was precluded from collecting fees under NMSA 1978, § 42-10-3, due to the lack of a specific assignment of the recovered insurance proceeds in the agreement (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its interpretation of NMSA 1978, § 42-10-3, thereby allowing Ferguson to collect attorney fees from insurance proceeds without a specific assignment in the contingency fee agreement (para 2).
• Whether the district court's evidentiary and instruction rulings based on its interpretation of the statute were correct (para 11).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Ferguson, holding that the district court did not err in its interpretation of NMSA 1978, § 42-10-3, or in its evidentiary and instruction rulings (para 12).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with James J. Wechsler and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, the court held that NMSA 1978, § 42-10-3 did not require a specific assignment of insurance proceeds in the contingency fee agreement for Ferguson to collect its fees. The court found no reasonable basis to interpret the statute as requiring such specific language of assignment when an attorney is retained to recover those proceeds. The court also noted that the agreement provided clear notice to Gengler of Ferguson's entitlement to a percentage of the recovery and that Ferguson did not attempt to attach or lien the funds recovered but sought to recover fees due under contract. The court concluded that Gengler's premises were faulty and that his interpretation of the statute did not promote the policy set out by In re Portal. The court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict in favor of Ferguson (paras 6-11).