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

• The Plaintiff owned property adjacent to a flood retention pond constructed in 1998 by the City of Gallup to address flooding at the Gallup airport. Since its construction, the pond, lacking an impermeable liner or automatic pumping system, frequently overflowed, leading to water seepage into the Plaintiff's property. This resulted in structural damage to the Plaintiff's building, including the foundation, walls, roof, and floors. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for nuisance, negligence, and damages against the City of Gallup, Gallup Flying Service, Molzen-Corbin & Associates, P.A., and an unknown contractor responsible for the pond's construction (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that there were disputed material facts regarding when the Plaintiff knew or should have known about the property damage and the existence of claims against the Defendants. Additionally, the Plaintiff contended that the property suffered separate injuries, each with its own discovery date and limitations period (para 4).
• Defendants: Contended that the Plaintiff had notice of the pond's damaging effects as early as 1998 but no later than 2003. They argued that the lawsuit, filed in 2008, was barred by the applicable statutes of limitations: a two-year period for claims against the City and a four-year period for claims against the other Defendants (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether disputed material facts exist regarding when the Plaintiff knew or should have known about the injuries to her property and the existence of her claims against the Defendants.
• Whether the Plaintiff's property incurred separate injuries, each with its own discovery date and limitations period, under the principles established in Valdez v. Mountain Bell Telephone Co.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court. It found that material disputed facts existed about when the Plaintiff acquired sufficient inquiry notice regarding the existence of any claim against Gallup Flying Service and Molzen-Corbin, making summary judgment against these Defendants improper. However, it appeared that the Plaintiff acquired inquiry notice of the claim against the City more than two years before the lawsuit was filed, barring the claims against the City unless the Plaintiff could succeed under the theory that each successive injury gave rise to a new cause of action with its own discovery date and period of limitation (paras 18, 19, 34).

Reasons

• The Court reasoned that conflicting testimony regarding the presence or absence of visible signs of building damage in 1998 presented a question of fact as to whether there was any visible structural damage that would have placed the Plaintiff on inquiry notice of a cause of action against the Defendants. Additionally, the Court found that mere knowledge of a crack in the building in 2001 was legally insufficient to place the Plaintiff on inquiry notice of a claim against the Defendants. The Court also determined that testimony regarding the timing of when the Plaintiff became aware of certain damages was inconclusive, leading to the conclusion that disputed material facts existed regarding the Plaintiff's awareness of the damages prior to the filing of the lawsuit. The Court further concluded that the Plaintiff's claims for successive injuries arising within the statute of limitations were not barred under the principles established in Valdez v. Mountain Bell Telephone Co., as the Defendants failed to demonstrate that the pond and seepage were permanent and that the damages were ascertainable at the time the pond was constructed (paras 12, 14, 16, 17, 24, 27, 30, 32).