Unfortunately for those who want to make use of the beautiful summer weather and vacation from school, the summer months often experience an uptick in car crashes because of several increased risk factors. What makes the summer roads so dangerous?

More Drunk Drivers

Some of the most dangerous holidays for intoxicated motorists fall during the summer months. People may drink too much on the 4th of July or at a Memorial Day barbecue, resulting in a higher rate of drunk driving crashes during the summer than in any other season throughout the year. Good weather often leads to outdoor celebrations and barbecues, which unfortunately might mean an elevated risk of a collision even when the nearest holiday is weeks away.

More Teen Drivers

Young adults struggle to drive safely for multiple reasons. They simply lack the experience necessary and have many years of driving ahead before they truly master the rules of the road. They are also prone to make unsafe and dangerous decisions because their brains are still developing.

The summer months see far more young drivers on the road throughout the day because they don’t have school. They may drive themselves to social events or part-time jobs. Thanks to more miles traveled, the summer months often see a surge in collisions caused by younger drivers. Teen drivers are at such elevated risk for crashes that safety experts recommend that parents revisit traffic safety rules with young adults early in the season for their own protection.

Additionally, driving in unfamiliar areas can increase someone’s distraction levels and the likelihood that they might make a mistake or an oversight at the wheel. Recognizing factors that increase someone’s summertime crash risk can help them ensure that their next road trip is a pleasant memory rather than the cause of a major motor vehicle collision.

Families members who lose a loved one in a tragic scenario like a drunk driving collision will often feel confused about their rights in relation to the recent tragedy. Many may not know that they have a right to seek compensation for their loss. Below are a few ways family members can obtain recourse.

They Can File an Insurance Claim

Every driver in New Mexico has to carry liability insurance coverage, which means that those who lose a loved one in a crash typically have the right to file an insurance claim. Even though drunk driving is clearly a violation of state law, standard insurance will apply in most cases.

They Can File a Civil Lawsuit

There are two kinds of lawsuits generally possible after a deadly drunk driving crash in New Mexico.

The first would be against the driver who caused the collision. A wrongful death claim against the at-fault driver can them accountable. The second type of lawsuit is known as a dram shop claim. Under New Mexico law, businesses have to comply with state liquor laws and that means that if they serve an individual under the age of 21 or already visibly drunk, they could be liable.

Looking into every option for justice after a deadly drunk driving crash with the assistance of a legal professional can help surviving family members protect themselves and create consequences for the parties that caused their loss.

The Law in New Mexico

New Mexico law defines reckless driving as driving “any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others and without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property.” A person convicted of reckless driving can face jail time and/or fines.

The driver can also be held liable for civil damages if they harm someone.

Obtaining Compensation From a Reckless Driver

Victims of reckless drivers can seek damages, to pay for medical bills and other expenses as well as non-economic damages like pain and suffering. You can also seek punitive damages. These types of damages are meant to deter the at-fault driver and others from engaging in such egregious behavior. Depending on the circumstances, in New Mexico, punitive damages can be as much as ten times the amount of compensatory damages.

Certainly, no amount of money can bring back a loved one or undo injuries you might have to live with for the rest of your life. However, they can mitigate the financial damage done and make things a little easier financially as you move forward.

By hiring an experienced legal advocate, you can improve your chances of getting the maximum possible compensation.

The problem with this, however, is that alcohol is often involved. This means that drunk driving accidents are more likely over this holiday season. For many people who are injured or who lose loved ones in accidents caused by drunk drivers, the holidays certainly become a much different experience than they expected.

A Notable Increase

For example, one study looked at drunk driving deaths around New Year’s. It found the single holiday caused a spike rising over the baseline average by about 116%. In other words, there are always going to be fatal drunk driving accidents, and that’s always a risk that you face. But you clearly face a greater statistical risk if you are driving around the holidays.

The Biggest Bar Days

Likewise, the holidays are some of the biggest bar days of the year. Many people go out for New Year’s, and it’s a guarantee that some of them will try to drive home afterward, even though they’re too intoxicated to do so. It’s also often said that the days around Thanksgiving are some of the major bar holidays because college students who are home want to meet up with friends that they haven’t seen lately.

Why Does It Happen?

Drunk driving happens for a lot of different reasons. The social events noted above just provide the reasons for higher levels of intoxication, not necessarily drunk driving. That is something that occurs because people will believe it’s safe to do once, because they neglected to get a designated driver, because everyone in the group is impaired or simply because they’ve consumed so much alcohol that they’re not thinking clearly and they don’t understand how intoxicated they are.

If you have lost a loved one in one of these accidents, make sure you are well aware of the legal options at your disposal.

But what if that driver harmed a motorist? What rights do you have if you suffered injuries after a car crash caused by a drunk driver?

You Can File an Insurance Claim

Every driver in New Mexico is required to carry liability insurance coverage. However, even if a driver has an insurance policy, it may not provide the coverage needed to pay for catastrophic injuries. But there is another option.

You Can File a Civil Lawsuit

Those injured in auto accidents by drunk drivers in New Mexico have the ability to pursue a lawsuit against the at-fault driver. A judgment could award you compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, property damage costs and others not covered by insurance.

You Could Hold a Business Responsible

If a drunk driver was consuming alcohol at a bar or restaurant before the crash, the business that served the individual may be liable under the theory of dram shop liability. The dram shop laws in New Mexico pass liability onto businesses if a representative of the establishment, like a server or bartender, serves a patron who is visibly drunk or under the legal age for consuming alcohol and later causes harm to another person.

For those with catastrophic losses, a dram shop claim could be a fair and appropriate way to seek compensation to pay for medical expenses and other costs related to the accident.

While you may understand the basics of what happens after a crash with another passenger vehicle, you may not fully understand what happens after a collision with a delivery vehicle.

What protection do you have after a delivery driver or delivery fleet vehicle crashes into you?

The Right to File an Insurance Claim

Typically, the companies that have their own delivery fleets or that hire contractors have comprehensive commercial insurance policies protecting against the liability that comes with delivery driving. However, there will be situations where you make a claim against an individual’s policy rather than a company policy.

When you get into a crash caused by a rideshare driver without a passenger or an on-demand delivery driver in their own vehicle, you may depend on their personal policy rather than the company policy. Commercial policies generally offer more robust protection than individual policies, so it may be worth looking into what kind of coverage is available after a crash caused by a delivery vehicle.

You Could File a Civil Lawsuit

Sometimes, delivery drivers put others on the road at risk. Some text while driving, drive while fatigued, or drive while under the influence. If a delivery driver did something overtly negligent, you may have grounds to pursue a personal injury lawsuit.

If the accident involved a poorly-maintained fleet vehicle, the employer of the delivery driver could be to blame. The same is true in scenarios that relate to the company’s demands on a worker or negligent employment practices, like hiring someone with a prior drunk driving conviction.

Determining the full cost of the crash is very important after an accident involving a delivery driver. Seeking a legal professional who can help determine who and how much is advised.

Fortunately, you are now ok and on your road to recovery. However, you are still unable to return to work. Your physician has indicated you will need to complete extensive physical therapy in the upcoming future and likely require additional surgical procedures.

A few days after returning home, the at-fault driver’s insurance company has contacted you and offered you a settlement. What do you do?

This situation happens all too often for those seriously injured in car accidents. So, the question remains: Should you take the settlement?

No. Here are three reasons why.

Reason 1: Insurance Company Profits

Insurance companies are in business to make money, not pay out claims. In many cases, they will offer a claimant a very low settlement amount in the hopes that it’s enough to entice them to accept. Unfortunately, most offers are far from what an injured parties needs to recover.

Reason 2: Limited Knowledge of the Law

The law on what you can recover for auto accident injuries is complex. Insurance adjusters know the average person isn’t likely to know exactly what types of compensation they are entitled to recover.

Many injured parties may be aware that they can get reimbursed for medical expenses. But what about lost wages from taking time off work? How about future compensation for surgical procedures that are needed down the line?

Reason 3: Prohibition Against Future Claims

Once you accept a settlement offer from an insurance company – even if it seems lucrative – you will likely be required to sign an agreement that forgoes your option to pursue future compensation for anything related to the accident or your injuries. In the event you discover 5 years down the line that you need a very invasive surgical procedure, you will not be able to recover.

The best course of action before accepting any offer is to get a legal advocate who knows the law and knows what you are entitled to. He or she can ensure to pursue the compensation you need not just today but in the future.

When you understand these potentially serious injuries, you will be in a better position to protect yourself on the road and also in the immediate aftermath of a motor vehicle collision.

What Constitutes a Traumatic Brain injury?

A TBI occurs when someone has bleeding or bruising on the brain or inside their skull. This inflammation or bleeding will put pressure on the brain and can cause alarming symptoms.

The consequences of a TBI range from changes in sensory processing and motor function to shifts in personality and protracted unconsciousness. In extreme cases, people may end up dependent on life support and unable to return to work after a traumatic brain injury.

How Do Car Crashes Cause TBIs?

There are numerous ways that a car crash could cause a TBI. The first and most obvious is blunt force trauma. Someone thrown from the vehicle will likely hurt their head. Individuals can also strike their heads on the windows or frame of the vehicle during a crash, which can lead to a TBI.

However, you don’t have to actually hit your head to hurt your brain. The violent motion of the vehicle could cause your brain to move around inside your skull and cause swelling and bleeding. People can also develop brain injuries because of penetrating wounds caused by shrapnel in the collision. Explosions, while rare, can cause percussive force that injures the brain.

You may not notice the signs of the TBI right at the scene of a crash. It could be days before you start to notice the change in your sleeping habits or your vision that makes you think you need to see a doctor. The sooner you obtain an accurate medical diagnosis, the easier it will be for you to prove that your brain injury is the result of a car crash.

TBIs can lead to both massive medical bills and also lost earning potential. For some people, the cost of a TBI will be high enough that they need to look into secondary sources of financial compensation after a car wreck. Understanding the connection between motor vehicle collisions and brain injuries can help those coping with the aftermath of a recent wreck.

If you got hurt in a wreck as a passenger in one of the vehicles involved, you may have questions about what rights you have to compensation. After all, medical costs after a crash can add up to tens of thousands of dollars, and you could lose weeks of income while you recover.

What insurance and personal injury options are available to passengers hurt in New Mexico collisions?

Determining Fault is Important

Insurance companies only want to pay when there is an active policy and the policyholder is the one with final liability for a situation. Although one insurance company may initially make a payment to those affected by a crash, they may subrogate the claim later by asking for compensation from someone else’s insurance company.

If the driver of the other vehicle is to blame for the collision, then, as an injured passenger, their insurance policy will theoretically pay for your medical costs and property damage expenses. If the vehicle you were in is the one at fault for the crash, then the owner of that vehicle will provide you with insurance coverage. Your policy could help you if the driver at fault for the crash does not have enough insurance to pay for all the damages they caused or if they didn’t have insurance at all.

What About Civil Litigation?

Those left injured by a serious car crash in New Mexico can file lawsuits against the driver who caused their injury or even third parties who contributed to the collision. Typically, you need some evidence of misconduct or negligence to have a viable claim in court, and you will also need proof of expenses that their insurance would not cover.

Many people dealing with the aftermath of a serious car crash require help getting the compensation they require given the circumstances. Learning more about insurance and personal injury laws can help those affected negatively by New Mexico motor vehicle collisions.

The plaintiff in the case was the mother of a son who had been killed in a motor vehicle accident. A wrongful death case was filed on her behalf in New Mexico state court. As part of that litigation the plaintiff, who lived in Mexico, gave a power of attorney to her uncle. He allegedly agreed to act for her by accepting any money that she was entitled to as part of the litigation. He was to keep half of the money and send her the other half.

The plaintiff alleged in a subsequent federal court complaint that her uncle had misappropriated over two hundred thousand dollars in settlement money that was wired from the plaintiff’s wrongful death counsel to him. The defendant did not file an answer to the federal court complaint or move to dismiss it although he had been served. The clerk of court made an entry of default, and the defendant did not respond to this either, according to the court’s discussion of the history of the case. The court ordered supplemental briefing and directed the plaintiff to provide the evidence in support of her case to the defendant so he would have another opportunity to respond. He did not respond, and the court considered what award to the plaintiff would be appropriate.

The court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to judgment in her favor with respect to the defendant’s liability for breach of contract and fraud, and that there was not a basis for a claim under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, which requires the allegedly fraudulent acts to have been performed in the regular course of the defendant’s trade or commerce. After addressing liability issues, the court then turned to damages.

The calculation of compensatory damages was clear cut. The plaintiff was entitled to the amounts allegedly misappropriated by her relative, in total over two hundred thousand dollars. By way of punitive damages the court awarded half of the amount of compensatory damages, over one hundred thousand dollars. The court also awarded the plaintiff costs, to cover the cost of filing the complaint and serving process, less than $500 in total. The court did not consider whether the plaintiff was entitled to pre-judgment interest as she had not sought it, but did award post-judgment interest. The court declined to award attorney fees, however, noting in the United States the American Rule applies pursuant to which each party typically pays its own attorney fees.

If you, a family member, or other loved one has been injured in an New Mexico car accident, you may be entitled by law to receive a financial recovery. Recovering personal injury damages can help give people the financial benefit of lost wages, and help cover expenses caused by the accident. We are here to help. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

The underlying litigation was brought following a fatal collision between a car and a tractor-trailer on Route 66. The surviving sister of the woman who was fatally injured in the lawsuit, acting as the personal representative of the woman’s estate, was the plaintiff. She alleged that her sister’s car struck the side of a tractor-trailer that was pulled across both lanes of traffic on Route 66. She further alleged that, during the collision, the car drove under the “under-rode” the tractor-trailer, causing the roof of the vehicle to collapse on her sister’s head and neck, severely injuring her. Her sister later died in the hospital.

The plaintiff asserted claims of strict products liability and negligence against the tractor-trailer manufacturer, and sought compensatory and punitive damages, on the basis that the tractor-trailer her sister’s car collided with was not equipped with a side guard to prevent vehicle under-riding.

The defendant tractor-trailer manufacturer asserted, in support of summary judgment on the products liability claim, that the plaintiff could not establish that its tractor-trailer was unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff disagreed, and countered with evidence including the defendant’s attempts to design a side under-ride guard for its trailers and the defendant’s filing of a patent for a side under-ride guard in April of 2010. The evidence submitted by the parties to the court also showed that the defendant had installed a side guard protector and had been testing it. Based on its review of the evidence the court concluded that a jury could infer that the danger of under-riding was obvious, foreseeable, common knowledge, and, therefore, unreasonable, rendering the tractor-trailer defective. The court also concluded that, even if New Mexico law requires proof of a feasible alternative design, the plaintiff had come forward with enough evidence to prove the existence of design alternatives—including the defendant’s own blueprints and design plans. Accordingly the court denied the defendant summary judgment on the products liability claim. The court also sided with the plaintiff insofar as the court denied the defendant summary judgment on the negligence claim and declined to dismiss the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim.

The court did, however, rule in favor of the defendant tractor-trailer manufacturer with respect to damages suffered by the daughter of the deceased driver as a result of her mother’s death. Allegedly the daughter refused to submit to questioning by defense counsel, as part of the pretrial discovery process. As a sanction, the court restricted the plaintiff, who was acting for the estate of the mother, from presenting evidence on the damages suffered by the daughter. The court recognized that the ultimate distribution of the estate’s funds was left to the sound discretion of the plaintiff, as estate representative.

If you or someone you love has been hurt in an accident, you may be entitled to receive a monetary award for damages. Being compensated monetarily can help people and their loved ones recover out-of-pocket costs including medical bills and lost wages. Personal injury litigation can be complicated. We can help. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

The court’s analysis followed a tractor-trailer collision resulting in an injured driver being transported for medical treatment via emergency helicopter. Allegedly the police attributed the collision to driver inattention and following too closely, but did not specify which of the drivers was at fault. The plaintiffs sued the driver, asserting causes of action for negligence and negligence per se. In the same complaint, the plaintiffs asserted causes of action against the driver’s employer based on legal theories including respondeat superior/vicarious liability, negligent hiring, negligent entrustment and negligent training and supervision. After the parties had filed their pleadings and before the pretrial discovery process, the defendants challenged the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ complaint.

When the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged so early on in the life of a personal injury case, the court is required to construe the facts set forth in the pleadings and inferences that can be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing dismissal of the complaint. The court is to treat well-pleaded factual allegations in the pleadings of the party opposing dismissal as true, and consider whether they could establish a basis for liability.

In this case, the court was of the view that the plaintiffs’ allegations supported only a disputed claim that the driver the plaintiffs sued had caused the collision or had been negligent per se, but that the very occurrence of a vehicle accident did not support claims of the employer’s negligence in training, supervising, hiring or entrusting its drivers. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts from with the court could infer that this kind of negligence had occurred. The court did not explain how the plaintiffs could be expected to know, so early in the pretrial process, the circumstances under which the driver was hired, entrusted with a vehicle, trained or supervised by his employer. The court did not, however, dismiss the respondeat superior/vicarious liability cause of action, which can provide a basis for imposing liability on an employer for acts and omissions of employees acting within the scope of the employees’ duties.

If you or a loved one has been hurt in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. In some cases multiple parties can be liable for the payment of money damages based on multiple theories of recovery. Receiving damages can help injured people and their families recover out-of-pocket costs including medical bills and lost wages. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

The plaintiff’s car had allegedly been rear-ended. Her complaint alleged that she had been stopped in traffic when a vehicle struck her vehicle from behind, and that she sustained serious personal injuries as a result. She sought to recoup damages for medical bills, enduring pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of household services.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff could not recover from the owner of the car that had rear-ended her car. This was because it was not the owner who was driving the car at the time of the accident. The owner’s mother was driving, and she allegedly had her license revoked prior to the accident for driving under the influence of alcohol and did not have liability insurance. The plaintiff therefore decided to pursue a recovery from her own automobile insurer, under the uninsured motorist coverage provisions of the insurance policy.

The plaintiff’s insurance company did not make a settlement offer that was acceptable. It made an offer for less than the full amount of the medical bills, taking the position that the plaintiff had reached the maximum medical improvement that she would achieve some two months after the accident. The plaintiff was of the view this was inadequate because the insurance company was ignoring her traumatic brain injury and much of her treatment, and did not address her punitive damages claims against the driver and owner of the car that rear-ended her car.

The plaintiff sued her insurance company and the insurance company responded with a motion to bifurcate her insurance bad faith claims from her contract claims for insurance coverage. The insurance company wished to have the plaintiff proceed in two phases. In the first phase she would be called upon to prove negligence to the jury. If she succeeded, she could pursue her claim against the defendant insurance company for failing to pay out on uninsured motorist coverage.

The court rejected the insurance company’s proposed pretrial bifurcation. The court reasoned that because the tortfeasor was completely uninsured the insurance company could not credibly dispute that it was under an obligation to pay the plaintiff some amount of money. Rather, the court was of the view that the dispute in the case was over how much the insurance company must pay, which in the court’s assessment was not so distinct an issue from whether the insurance company’s pre-litigation settlement offers were reasonable. In addition to denying the insurance company’s motion to bifurcate the claims, the court also denied bifurcated discovery. The court balanced the parties rights by leaving open the possibility of deciding at a later pretrial status conference that the plaintiff’s claims could be tried in multiple phases or presented to separate juries.

If you, a family member, or other loved one has been injured in an New Mexico car accident, you may be entitled by law to receive a financial recovery. Recovering personal injury damages can help people pay out-of-pocket costs including lost wages and medical bills. Sometimes a recovery can be complicated by the steps taken by insurance companies. We are here to help. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

The plaintiffs responded by seeking remand of their personal injury case to state court, where they had initially filed it. In support of their position they argued that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was not diversity of citizenship among the parties to the case. This argument was based on the foreign limited liability company having hired a registered agent for service of process in New Mexico. The plaintiffs also sought remand to state court on the basis of judicial economy. They asserted that another lawsuit brought by different plaintiffs was proceeding in state court against the same corporate defendant based on the same incident.

The court began its analysis by observing that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and that a defendant seeking to remove a case from state court therefore has to overcome a presumption against removal. Citing 28 U.S.C. §1332, the court explained that removal is proper where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties to a case and the amount in controversy in the case exceeds $75,000. The court went on to explain that a corporation is deemed to be a citizen on the states in which it has been incorporated as well as the state that houses its principal place of business.

In this case, it was a limited liability company before the court, not a corporation, so the standard was different. As the court explained, it was bound to apply precedent concluding that the citizenship of limited liability companies is determined by the citizenship of their members and not their principal place of business. Following this standard the limited liability company was a Utah citizen because its sole member was a permanent resident of Utah. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant having a registered agent for service of process in New Mexico destroyed the diversity of citizenship necessary to have the case proceed in federal court. After rejecting the rest of the arguments presented by the plaintiffs, the court denied their motion to remand the case back to state court, their preferred forum for litigation.

If you or someone you love has been hurt in an accident, you may be entitled to receive a monetary award for damages. Being compensated monetarily when you are injured can help people and their loved ones recover out-of-pocket costs including medical bills and lost wages. Litigation can be complicated, and you should not have to navigate the legal process on your own. We can help. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

As part of its defense, the tire manufacturer unsuccessfully moved the court to enter a partial summary judgment in its favor holding that the plaintiffs could not recover compensatory damages for aggravating circumstances under New Mexico law.

Under New Mexico law, the personal representative of a wrongful death estate can recover compensatory damages on behalf of the estate. When determining whether it is appropriate to award compensatory damages, a New Mexico jury can consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending the allegedly wrongful act, neglect, or default. While compensatory damages generally are made available so that injured parties are made whole, compensatory damages under New Mexico’s wrongful death statute also further the interest of deterrence. Compensatory damages in aid of the public policy interest in deterrence can be awarded even in instances where punitive damages cannot be awarded.
In this case the defendant took the position that the record before the court on summary judgment showed that there was no evidence in existence that could support an award of compensatory damages for aggravating circumstances. The plaintiffs countered that a reasonable jury could find in their favor on this issue and, therefore, partial summary judgment should be denied. In support of their position the plaintiffs directed the court’s attention to evidence in the record supporting their assertion that contamination in the tire manufacturing process contributed to the injurious tire blow out.

The court reasoned that a reasonable jury could find aggravating circumstances based on the facts presented by the plaintiffs, much as the facts were disputed by the defendant. This is not to say that a jury would find for the plaintiffs. The court explained that the defense motion may have been premature insofar as the court was being asked to rule on the existence of aggravating circumstances without having the benefit of considering all of the evidence presented to a jury. Accordingly, the court denied the tire manufacturer defendant partial summary judgment while not precluding the defendant from renewing its motion at the close of evidence at trial. By not precluding an award of compensatory damages for aggravating circumstances, the court enabled the plaintiffs to make the best case they could in support of a substantial financial recovery.

If you or a loved one has been hurt in an accident, there may be grounds for a recovery of monetary damages. Collecting damages can help people who have been injured and their families cover out-of-pocket costs including medical bills and lost wages. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or contact attorney Matthew Vance online.

Litigation followed after a car collided with a cow on New Mexico State Highway 6. The people who were in the car at the time of the accident and sustained damages sued the partnership that owned the cow and two of the partnership’s employees or agents. The plaintiffs sued in New Mexico state court and the defendants took the position during the litigation that the cow entered the highway by jumping over a gate owned and maintained by a railway. The plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit against the railway asserting that the railway’s negligence resulted in the cow gaining access to Highway 6. The railway demanded by letter that the partnership sued in the first lawsuit hold the railway harmless and indemnify it. The railway also demanded that any settlement negotiated with the partnership or its insurance carriers include a full and complete release of the railway. Counsel for the partnership responded with a letter denying the alleged obligations to defend and indemnify the railway.

The plaintiffs and defendants to the first lawsuit participated in a mediation and arrived at a settlement in the amount of $3 million, to be paid upon execution of a release to be prepared by the defendants. Disputes arose because the parties could not agree on terms of settlement documents that reflected the agreement reached following mediation. The railway, which was not a named party in the suit that had been settled but rather to a separate lawsuit, took the position that it was released. This was based on settlement agreement language contemplating the release of “all named or potential parties to the litigation.” The plaintiffs asserted the railway was not released.

The federal trial court resolving the conflicting positions looked to New Mexico case law holding that a purported third-party beneficiary of a release bears the burden of proving it was an intended beneficiary of the release. The court concluded that the railway had not met its burden of proof based mostly on the dictionary definition of “potential” as including “possible” or “capable of being or becoming.” The court reasoned that at the time the parties to the first lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs signed the settlement agreement, the railway was named in a separate litigation. Because the railway was a known and certain party in separate litigation, the court was not convinced the railway was also a potential party to the lawsuit that was settled. The court also found significant the railway’s alleged non-participation in mediation and other settlement discussions. The court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment, ruling that the railway was not released from liability and could not sustain a defense of release from liability.

If you or a loved one suffered personal injuries in an accident, there may be grounds for a recovery of monetary damages from parties who are responsible. In some situations, more than one party can be held responsible. Collecting monetary damages can help people who have suffered personal injuries with out-of-pocket costs, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

A lawsuit was brought on her behalf and on behalf of her husband against the maker of the car the injured woman was driving in the First Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe. The plaintiffs sought an award of punitive damages based on causes of action including strict products liability, negligence, breach of an implied warranty, and loss of consortium. The defendant car maker filed a notice of removal, pursuant to which the case was removed from state court to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Initially the defendant sought dismissal based on allegedly improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendant then withdrew its argument for dismissal based on improper service, resulting in the question of whether there was personal jurisdiction over the defendant being the sole issue for adjudication by the court.
The court explained that specific requirements apply to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over litigants who are not residents of the state in which the court sits. The parties seeking to establish personal jurisdiction, in this case the wife who suffered catastrophic injuries and her husband, bore the burden of proving jurisdiction exists. They were required to satisfy standards for the exercise of personal jurisdiction the U.S. Supreme Court has prescribed based on its interpretation of the Constitution’s due process provisions.

At the first stage of the due process analysis courts are to consider whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state in which the defendant has been sued to have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in the state. At the second stage of the due process analysis, courts are to consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The court reasoned that there were no facts establishing a link between the activities directed by the defendant car maker to New Mexico and the accident forming the basis of the litigation that would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. According to the court, the injured plaintiff had purchased her car at a used car dealership in New Mexico. Prior to her having title to the car, the car had been titled in California. Focusing on those facts the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not made a prima facie showing of facts supporting the exercise of jurisdiction. The court then denied the plaintiffs the opportunity to take limited discovery concerning jurisdiction on the basis that the plaintiffs purportedly did not articulate with specificity what facts could be obtained through jurisdictional discovery or how the facts would prevent prejudice to them. Why the plaintiffs could reasonably be expected to articulate what facts they could discover before taking discovery is not apparent from the ruling.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. An award of damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your recoveries, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

Underlying the ruling was a fatal accident that occurred after a person working at a store sold gasoline to a person who was allegedly visibly intoxicated. The representative of the person who was killed in the accident caused by the allegedly intoxicated driver sued the store whose worker sold the gasoline for negligent entrustment based on the sale of gasoline, and for negligent hiring, training, and supervision of the employee who sold the gasoline.

The personal representative filed a case in the District Court of the Navajo Nation in Crownpoint, New Mexico. The case was met with a successful summary judgment motion premised on a time bar under the Navajo Nation’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court and, while the appeal was pending, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in New Mexico state district court, which the defendant removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.

The defendant’s litigation strategy included filing a motion to compel the plaintiff to elect in which forum he would proceed and seeking, in the alternative, the dismissal of the federal court complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had impermissibly engaged in claim splitting of his claims between federal and tribal courts. The court did not rule for the defendant on these theories, and it concluded that the parallel actions could proceed toward judgment until one became preclusive of the other. The court observed that no party had argued, and there was nothing before it to indicate, that any restriction existed on the tribal court’s concurrent civil jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims. The court rejected the position that the plaintiff had improperly engaged in claim splitting by filing duplicative lawsuits in different court systems.

While the court ruled for the plaintiff to this extent, the court ruled against the plaintiff on the merits of the negligent entrustment claim. According to the plaintiff, a number of factors made it foreseeable that selling gasoline would put the motoring public at risk. The plaintiff’s theory of the case, as summarized by the court, was that the driver was allegedly visibly intoxicated when he arrived at the defendant’s gas station on foot, his companion and he purchased a single gallon of gasoline, making it obvious he was using it to start his car, and the defendant’s gas station is located near a highway with a high speed limit. Among the questions this raised was whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care under New Mexico law.

The court declined to find that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to refrain from selling gasoline to an allegedly intoxicated driver for the primary reason that the plaintiff had not cited, and the court had not found, New Mexico judicial cases or laws expressly holding that such a duty exists. The court did not extend cases from other jurisdictions into New Mexico, noting that New Mexico imposes liability on parties for alcohol-related accidents, and the New Mexico legislature imposes no liability on gasoline vendors. Ultimately, the court concluded that if the allegedly visibly intoxicated driver legally purchased gasoline, the defendant had no duty to refrain from making the sale.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. An award of monetary damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. Sometimes a case can be pursued in more than one court because there is concurrent jurisdiction. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The case arose after an insurance company denial of coverage. A woman was involved in a New Mexico motor vehicle accident with an unknown driver, following which she made a claim with her insurance company for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The insurance company denied coverage, taking the position that its insured was 100% at fault for the accident. The insured driver then sued for UM benefits and punitive damages and a jury found the UM driver 100% at fault and awarded the insured driver damages.

Thereafter the plaintiff sued her insurance company for breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, and unfair practices for the insurance company’s failure to pay the claim, including paying the jury verdict, and for its handling of the claim through the underlying lawsuit. The insurance company paid the jury verdict and sought a protective order with respect to discovery sought by the plaintiff.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Rule 26(b)(1) allows discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case. . . .” Rule 26(c)(1) goes on to provide, however, that a court may “for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including “forbidding the disclosure or discovery” or “forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.” In this case the court agreed with the insurance company that conduct of its adjusters and employees during the underlying litigation was not relevant to whether the insurance company acted in bad faith in refusing to cover the plaintiff’s claim. Alternatively, the court found that documents and communications of the insurance company following denial of coverage were protected from discovery because of the work product doctrine, which protects from disclosure materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. This doctrine had not precluded discovery from the insurance company adjusters who initially handled the plaintiff’s claim and made a liability determination, who had been deposed at the point the insurance company sought a protective order.

Next the court protected from discovery written reports prepared by counsel to the insurance company during the underlying litigation. The plaintiff had argued that the insurance company’s counsel had been working as a claims adjuster so the attorney-client privilege did not apply. The court differentiated the situation before it from ones cited by the plaintiff, in which counsel acted in the ordinary course of business as a claims adjuster. In this case the court concluded that counsel’s report had been prepared following the insurance company’s denial of coverage and in anticipation of litigation and was, therefore, protected from discovery. The court also denied the plaintiff discovery of a PowerPoint presentation she asserted the defendant insurance company used to train claim handlers. The plaintiff had argued that the presentation was discoverable because it was not specific to a claim but rather was a general training for litigation adjusters. The court concluded that the presentations were still protected by the attorney-client privilege because they facilitated counsel’s provision of legal advice. The court asked for these materials to be submitted for in camera review to ensure they did not contain other information, not protected by privilege, such as information concerning business matters or management decisions.

If you or a loved one has suffered personal injuries following a car accident, there may be grounds for recovery. Insurance companies are among the parties that may be responsible for paying for the costs of an accident. They are sophisticated litigants, and often try to cause litigation to be drawn out in order to gain an advantage over their insureds and others. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico insurance bad faith lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

New Mexico Federal Court Bifurcates Contract-based Claims from Bad Faith Claims Against Insurance Company

Insurance Company Lawyers Can Be Held Liable for Violations of the New Mexico Insurance Code

The plaintiff alleged that she had suffered injuries after her vehicle was rear-ended by another vehicle. She settled with the insurance company of the driver who had allegedly caused the accident for the limits of that driver’s insurance policy, and then made a demand on her own insurance company for UIM and the insurance company refused to pay. She then sued her insurance company, asserting two different sets of claims. She claimed a breach of contract based on her insurer’s non-payment of UIM benefits and breach of the duties of good faith and fair dealing. These were contract based claims under her insurance policy with the defendant insurance company.

In separate counts, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged extra-contractual claims for insurance bad faith, violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), and violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The defendant insurance company moved to bifurcate the trials of Plaintiff’s UIM contract based claims from her bad faith, UIPA, and UTPA claims and stay discovery on those extra-contractual claims “until such time as a jury has found that the Plaintiff is legally entitled to recover benefits on the underlying UIM breach of contract claim.” The plaintiff opposed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) allows a court to order separate trials on one or more issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims or third-party claims for the sake of convenience, avoiding prejudice, or expediting and economizing. Applicable case law provides that it is appropriate for New Mexico federal trial courts to bifurcate under Rule 42(b) in cases where these interests favor separation of issues and the issues are clearly separable such as, for example, when the resolution of one claim may eliminate the need to adjudicate one or more other claims. Bifurcation is considered inappropriate when it will not appreciably shorten trial or affect the evidence offered by the parties because the claims at issue are inextricably interlinked.

Applying this standard, which affords federal judges a broad and significant amount of discretion, the court concluded bifurcation of the plaintiff’s contractual claims from her extra-contractual claims was not mandatory, nor did it promote judicial economy. The court reasoned that determination of the UIM breach of contract claims would not necessarily dispose of all of the plaintiff’s other claims, concluding that bifurcation would result, rather, in duplicative discovery and trials and prolong resolution of the case. In this case the court ruled for the insured party, but in future cases a court can rule for insureds or their insurance companies. The stakes are high. Bifurcation can frustrate a plaintiff by prolonging and delaying litigation and benefit insurance companies seeking to avoid or delay paying their insureds and others.

If you or a loved one has been physically injured in a motor vehicle accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. Among those who may be responsible for reimbursement of the costs associated with such accidents are insurance companies. To help you understand more about your case and make an informed decision about your options for proceeding, call New Mexico insurance insurance bad-faith lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.