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

• Plaintiffs' pickup truck was stolen, and they filed an insurance claim with their insurer, who had contracted Defendant to conduct claims investigations. Defendant requested various records from Plaintiffs and conducted examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiffs sought an explanation for the unpaid claim and eventually filed a lawsuit against the insurer and Defendant, alleging mishandling of their claim (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' action for damages and specific performance against Defendant Rosales Law Group, P.C. (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that Defendant was acting merely as a third-party claim investigator or adjuster, not as legal counsel in an adversarial proceeding, and thus could be held liable for the mishandling of their insurance claim (paras 8-9).
• Defendant: Contended that they were immune from suit because they were acting as legal counsel for the insurer, not as a claim investigator, and owed no fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs. Defendant argued that their lawsuit violated public policy by interfering with the insurer's right to competent counsel (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether Defendant, while investigating a pre-litigation insurance claim at the request of the insurer, may be liable to Plaintiffs under the claims alleged in their complaint (para 13).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order dismissing Plaintiffs' action and remanded for further proceedings (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael E. Vigil authoring the opinion, found that the district court erred in granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. The court determined that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the nature of the services Defendant provided to the insurer related to the handling of Plaintiffs' claim. This issue was critical in determining whether Defendant could be liable under the claims alleged in the complaint. The court concluded that the pleadings and record raised a possibility that Defendant was retained not as legal counsel in adversarial proceedings but as a third-party claim investigator or adjuster, which was relevant to the ultimate disposition of the case. Therefore, dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint was inappropriate at this stage (paras 11-18).