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 karate school, Fighting Back Action Training Institute, sought liability insurance through an agent, who contacted a surplus lines broker, Dolloff. The broker allegedly bound coverage with Lloyds of London, but it was later revealed that no policy existed. After a personal injury incident at the school, the injured party obtained a default judgment against the school and subsequently filed claims against Dolloff for failing to procure insurance (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• District Court, August 2003: Default judgment was entered against Dolloff New Mexico on the issue of liability for failure to appear (para 7).
• District Court, Date Unspecified: Summary judgment was granted in favor of Dolloff New York on statute of limitations grounds (para 7).
• District Court, Date Unspecified: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the claims were based on a written contract, invoking a six-year statute of limitations. Additionally, claimed fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations (paras 1, 8, 25).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the claims were based on an unwritten contract, subject to a four-year statute of limitations, and that the claims were time-barred. Also argued that fraudulent concealment was not raised in a timely manner (paras 1, 8, 25).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's claims were governed by the six-year statute of limitations for written contracts or the four-year statute for unwritten contracts (para 1).
• Whether fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations (para 8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the four-year statute of limitations applied and that the claims were time-barred (para 27).
• The Court also upheld the denial of the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (para 27).

Reasons

Per Fry J. (Pickard and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• The Court determined that the Plaintiff's claims were based on an oral agreement to procure insurance, not a written contract, and were therefore subject to the four-year statute of limitations under Section 37-1-4 (paras 1, 11, 21).
• The fax binder cited by the Plaintiff was deemed a contract of insurance, not a contract to procure insurance, and thus did not support the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim (paras 17-20).
• Claims for negligent misrepresentation, unfair insurance practices, and violations of the Unfair Practices Act were also subject to the four-year statute of limitations and were filed too late (paras 14-22).
• The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, as the Plaintiff failed to raise the fraudulent concealment argument in a timely manner and did not present newly discovered evidence (paras 23-26).