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

• In April 2013, the Petitioner made an uninsured motorist claim against the Respondent for bodily injuries resulting from a hit and run collision. Following an arbitration hearing, the arbitration panel awarded the Petitioner $83,000. The panel's award included a provision for the submission of any additional unresolved matters to the arbitration panel. In response, the Petitioner requested the panel to award attorney fees and prejudgment interest, which the panel denied (CN 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued for the award of attorney fees pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 44-7A-22(b) (2001) and NMSA 1978, Section 39-2-1 (1977), and prejudgment interest pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 56-8-4 (2004) following the arbitration panel's award of $83,000 for an uninsured motorist claim (CN 2).
• Respondent-Appellee: Opposed the Petitioner's request for attorney fees and prejudgment interest, arguing that the arbitration panel correctly declined to include an award on claims not submitted to them (MIO 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the arbitration panel erred in denying the Petitioner's requests for attorney fees and prejudgment interest.
• Whether the district court erred in confirming the arbitration panel's award without considering the Petitioner's entitlement to attorney fees or prejudgment interest.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order confirming the arbitration panel's award and denying the Petitioner's motions for attorney fees and prejudgment interest, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The Petitioner's motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal was denied (CN 1, 6-7).

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge, with LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring, found that the arbitration panel's denial of attorney fees and prejudgment interest was based on the perception that it did not have the authority to consider the issue of attorney fees and that the issue of prejudgment interest was not submitted to it. The Court of Appeals proposed to reverse and remand based on the view that the panel's decision denying attorney fees and prejudgment interest was an award on matters not submitted to the panel. The Court was not persuaded by the Respondent's argument that the panel merely declined to include an award on claims not submitted to them, noting the lack of authority to support such a proposition. The Court also denied the Petitioner's motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal, stating that the reasonableness of the Respondent's failure to pay the claim had not been determined by the district court in the first instance (CN 2-7).