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

• While driving, the Daughter experienced a tire deflation and was unable to exit her vehicle due to traffic. Her Mother arrived to assist and, while calling Liberty Mutual for roadside assistance, was instructed by the Operator to retrieve the vehicle's license plate number. In attempting to do so, the Mother was struck by another vehicle and sustained injuries. The Daughter's vehicle was insured by Liberty Mutual, which included towing and labor coverage (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that Liberty Mutual and the Operator were negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care for the Mother's safety during the roadside assistance call, leading to her injuries. They filed claims of negligence, respondeat superior, negligent hiring/retention, and loss of consortium (para 5).
• Defendants: Contended that New Mexico does not recognize a cause of action for negligence against an insurer and that there was no duty to protect another from harm absent a specific relationship that legally obligates a defendant to protect a plaintiff’s interest (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether Liberty Mutual owed a legally cognizable duty to the Plaintiffs apart from its contractual obligations under the insurance policy (para 1).
• Whether the district court erred in granting Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment based on the argument that New Mexico does not recognize a cause of action for negligence against an insurer (paras 5-6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings (para 29).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Bustamante writing and Judges Bogardus and Yohalem concurring, found that the district court erred in its judgment. The court clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Ambassador did not preclude the application of negligence concepts in all circumstances against insurers and that Liberty Mutual, as a service provider, had a duty to render services with reasonable care. The court emphasized that every person has a duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of others and that this duty extends to service providers, including insurance companies when offering services like towing and roadside assistance. The court disagreed with Liberty Mutual's interpretation of Ambassador and other federal cases, stating that there was a general concept of tort liability for physical harm caused by service providers, which was sufficient to impose a duty of reasonable care (paras 9-28).