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

• Thirteen months after Rooter installed a diaper changing table in a Safeway store, the table collapsed, injuring Briana Fierro and her baby. The collapse was allegedly due to the butterfly bolts being installed backwards. Safeway and Rooter were named defendants in a lawsuit filed by the Fierros, alleging negligence among other claims. Safeway sought indemnification from Rooter based on both New Mexico common law and a service agreement between the two parties. Rooter and its insurance carrier refused to defend or indemnify Safeway, citing New Mexico’s anti-indemnification statute (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court: Granted Rooter’s motion for summary judgment, finding the agreement’s indemnification requirements void and unenforceable under New Mexico law, thus dismissing Safeway’s claim for contractual indemnification (para 3).
• Court of Appeals: Reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Rooter owed Safeway a common law right of indemnification and whether Rooter’s duty to insure Safeway was breached (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Rooter: Argued that traditional indemnification is inapplicable where fault can be apportioned under comparative negligence principles to the party seeking indemnification. Asserted that since it satisfied its proportionate share of negligence with the Plaintiffs, and Safeway was never held liable for Rooter’s negligence, Safeway does not have a right to traditional indemnification against Rooter (para 9).
• Safeway: Contended it is entitled to traditional indemnification from Rooter because a jury’s apportionment of fault does not preclude Safeway’s right to common law indemnification against Rooter. Argued that New Mexico still adheres to traditional and proportional indemnity principles in some circumstances, including vicarious liability cases (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether traditional indemnity applies notwithstanding New Mexico’s adoption of comparative fault where the jury compared and apportioned fault among concurrent tortfeasors (para 1).
• Whether the duty to insure and defend provision of the Agreement between Rooter and Safeway is void and unenforceable under NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-1 (1971, amended 2005) (para 1).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that traditional indemnity does not apply when the jury finds a tortfeasor actively at fault and apportions liability using comparative fault principles. It also held that the duty to insure and defend provision of the Agreement between Rooter and Safeway is void and unenforceable under NMSA 1978, Section 56-7-1 (1971, amended 2005) (para 1).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court clarified the relationships between traditional indemnification, proportional indemnification, contribution, and comparative negligence. It held that traditional indemnity does not apply in cases where the jury apportions fault under comparative negligence principles, as it requires at least one active tortfeasor and one passive concurrent tortfeasor, applicable in a limited number of tort cases premised on vicarious or derivative liability. The Court also determined that the Agreement's provision requiring Rooter to defend and maintain liability insurance and name Safeway as an additional insured is unenforceable under Section 56-7-1, aligning with the public policy of holding each party accountable for injuries caused by its own negligence (paras 11-45).