Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
District 2 - Rules of the District Court of the Second Judicial District - cited by 109 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,546 documents
Rule Set 1 - Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts - cited by 4,556 documents
Rule Set 5 - Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts - cited by 2,182 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Aragon v. Westside Jeep/Eagle - cited by 3 documents
Corona v. Corona - cited by 204 documents
Duran v. Eichwald - cited by 30 documents
Hovet v. Allstate Insurance Company - cited by 124 documents
ITT Educ. Servs. Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't - cited by 173 documents
Spingola v. Spingola - cited by 51 documents
State v. City of Las Vegas - cited by 141 documents
State v. Leon - cited by 198 documents
Decision Content
MERTON V. FARMERS INSURANCE CO.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
NICK MERTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 35,571
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
September 21, 2016
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Nancy J. Franchini, District Judge
COUNSEL
Cravens Law, LLC, Richard H. Cravens, IV, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
O’Brien & Padilla, P.C., Daniel O’Brien, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Chief Judge.
{1} Plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of his third-party insurance bad faith complaint. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the district court’s decision. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
{2} The pertinent background information was set forth in the notice of proposed summary disposition. We will avoid undue repetition here, and focus instead on the content of the memorandum in opposition.
{3} Plaintiff appears to argue that there is no requirement of finality under Hovet v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2004-NMSC-010, 135 N.M. 397, 89 P.3d 69. [MIO 4, 9] However, Hovet unambiguously holds that “[a] third-party claimant’s statutory cause of action against the insurer for unfair settlement practices must await the conclusion of the underlying negligence action between the claimant and the insured.” Id. ¶ 26 (emphasis added). Given that under LR2-603 NMRA Plaintiff has obtained only “a nonenforceable order” at this stage, Aragon v. Westside Jeep/Eagle, 1994-NMSC-060, ¶ 10, 117 N.M. 720, 876 P.2d 235, we hold that the underlying negligence action against the insured has not yet concluded.
{4} Plaintiff further asserts that, as applied to Hovet plaintiffs, LR2-603 violates principles of due process and equal protection under the law. [MIO 11] These arguments were not preserved in the district court and are undeveloped in the memorandum in opposition. [RP 18-20; MIO 11] Therefore, we refuse to address them on appeal. See Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28, 329 P.3d 701 (“This Court has no duty to review an argument that is not adequately developed.”); ITT Educ. Serv., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 1998-NMCA-078, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 244, 959 P.2d 969 (stating that this Court will not consider propositions that are unsupported by citation to authority); State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 33, 292 P.3d 493 (“We generally do not consider issues on appeal that are not preserved below.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
{5} Lastly, as an alternative remedy, Plaintiff asks this Court to “direct the local court to modify its rules[.]” [MIO 12] While we acknowledge Plaintiff’s arguments that LR2-603 presents a potential for abuse, this Court has no such authority. As our Supreme Court held in Spingola v. Spingola:
The power to make rules regarding practice and procedure in all the courts of this State is vested by the Constitution solely in this Supreme Court. By means of Rule [1-083 NMRA] we have delegated to the district courts the power to promulgate rules, not inconsistent with ours, regarding practice in the local courts. A valid rule of a district court has the force and effect of law, the same as one published by this Court.
1978-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 28-29, 91 N.M. 737, 580 P.2d 958 (citations omitted). Further, “the Court of Appeals remains bound by Supreme Court precedent.” State ex rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, ¶ 20, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). Therefore, this Court may not order a lower court to amend its rules, and Plaintiff’s arguments are better directed at our Supreme Court. See Duran v. Eichwald, 2009-NMSC-030, ¶ 5, 146 N.M. 341, 210 P.3d 238 (discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to suspend Rule 5-604 NMRA on policy grounds).
{6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.
{7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge