This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute between the Plaintiff and Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona regarding the denial of insurance coverage. The Defendant sought to deny coverage based on an exception in its policy for punitive damages and damages caused by intentional conduct, as well as a specific New Mexico statute. The district court denied the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on this issue, and the parties subsequently entered into a stipulated final judgment resolving all claims (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of insurance coverage denial based on policy exceptions and statutory provisions (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff): Argued that the district court erred in denying its motion for partial summary judgment and claimed that it had reserved the right to appeal the decision in the stipulated final judgment (paras 4-5).
- Appellee (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant reserved the right to appeal the district court’s decision denying its motion for partial summary judgment in the stipulated final judgment.
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed as the Defendant did not reserve the right to appeal the district court’s decision in the stipulated final judgment (para 9).
Reasons
Per Medina CJ. (Hanisee and Attrep JJ. concurring): The Court found that the Defendant did not expressly or implicitly reserve the right to appeal the district court’s decision in the stipulated judgment. The language in the stipulated judgment was insufficient to establish a reservation of the right to appeal. The Court emphasized that New Mexico follows the general rule that a party cannot appeal from a judgment entered with its consent, and the exceptions to this rule were not met in this case. The Court also noted that the Defendant's arguments regarding the settlement agreement and potential future actions were unpersuasive and not part of the record (paras 3-9).