{
  "id": 1580047,
  "name": "Tony MADRID, d/b/a Tony Madrid Bonding Company, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, State Corporation Commission of the State of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Madrid v. Department of Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1985-03-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 15224",
  "first_page": "442",
  "last_page": "445",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "102 N.M. 442"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "697 P.2d 125"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 6933,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.816,
    "sha256": "0f711601eb11162bb0d79e2cf79ae1cbd4527476adb4408d1dd686c6d7cd05f1",
    "simhash": "1:afa77167aa059b15",
    "word_count": 1090
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:54.117025+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "FEDERICI, C.J., and SOSA, Senior Justice, concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Tony MADRID, d/b/a Tony Madrid Bonding Company, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, State Corporation Commission of the State of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWALTERS, Justice.\nThe Superintendent of Insurance suspended Petitioner Madrid\u2019s property bondsman and limited surety agency licenses. Madrid appeals the decision of the district court upholding the superintendent\u2019s decision. We reverse.\nOn June 3, 1983, the superintendent notified Madrid of his suspension. The notice informed petitioner that the suspension of his property bondsman license could be appealed to the District Court in Santa Fe County. It further advised that, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 59-2-9, Madrid could appeal the suspension of both licenses to the State Corporation Commission or to the Santa Fe District Court.\nMadrid chose to file an appeal on both license suspensions in the District Court. The Department of Insurance now argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear this case because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.\nBoth of the licenses held by Madrid \u2014 a property bondsman license and a limited surety agent license \u2014 are bail bondsmen licenses governed by the Bail Bondsmen Licensing Law, NMSA 1978, Sections 59A-51-1 to -19 (Orig.Pamp.1984) (hereafter \u201cBBLL\u201d). NMSA 1978, Section 59-2-9, to which the Superintendent of Insurance referred in his Order of Suspension, is not applicable to the licensing of bail bondsmen.\nAlthough the provisions of the BBLL have changed over a period of time, they have always provided that the correct avenue of appeal from an order of the Superintendent of Insurance is by petition to the State Corporation Commission. Only after a hearing there may a licensee appeal to the district court.\nBecause the sections of the Insurance Code, NMSA 1978, Chapter 59A (Orig. Pamp.1984) and NMSA 1978, Chapter 61, \u201cProfessional and Occupational Licenses,\u201d which contain the review procedure, are less than clear, we trace the relevant statutes.\nSection 59A-51-14 E (designated Section 59-32-17 E at the time of the actions on which this case is based) provides that:\nThe Uniform Licensing Act [61-1-1 to 61-1-31 NMSA 1978] shall apply with regard to the procedure for denial, revocation, suspension or refusal to continue a license pursuant to this article.\nThe Uniform Licensing Act (hereafter \u201cULA\u201d) sets out the procedure for review to the district court from a decision of any \u201cboard\u201d of the state government. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 61-1-17 (Repl.Pamp.1981).\nNMSA 1978, Section 61-1-2 A (Cum. Supp.1984), lists most of these boards but does not mention the Superintendent of Insurance, the Insurance Board or the State Corporation Commission. The section does provide, however, that the term \u201cboard\u201d shall also apply to:\nany other New Mexico state agency to which the Uniform Licensing Act is subsequently applied by law * * *.\nThe ULA had been applied by law to the licensing of bail bondsmen. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 59A-51-14 E (Orig.Pamp.1984). But nowhere in the statutes is it specified which agency concerned with licensing of bail bondsmen is the \u201cboard\u201d under the ULA. Other sections of the BBLL, however, make the intended procedure clear.\nIn June 1983, when the Superintendent of Insurance suspended Madrid\u2019s licenses, the BBLL contained the following provision:\nAny applicant for license as bail bondsman or solicitor whose application has been denied or whose license shall have been so suspended or revoked, or renewal thereof denied, shall have the right to appeal to the corporation commission pursuant to Section 59-5-39 NMSA 1978 and in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Licensing Act [61-1-1 to 61-1-31 NMSA 1978].\nNMSA 1978, \u00a7 59-32-22 (Supp.1979).\nMr. Madrid contends that the language \u201cand in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Licensing Act\u201d means that the term \u201cboard\u201d in that Act refers to either the Superintendent of Insurance or the Corporation Commission, at the option of the licensee. We cannot accept this argument.\nThe ULA controls many aspects of licensing procedure beyond the determination of which agency is to serve as the final administrative adjudicator. By referring to the ULA in Section 59-32-22 of the BBLL, the statute merely provided that guidelines set forth in the ULA should be considered when a license suspension is appealed to the Corporation Commission. This interpretation is strengthened by the statute\u2019s final sentence which reads that \u201c[a]ny further appeal shall be taken in district court as provided by law.\u201d \u00a7 59-32-22 (emphasis added).\nMoreover, Section 59-32-22 specifies that appeal to the Corporation Commission is \u201cpursuant to Section 59-5-39 NMSA 1978 * * That section, at the time this matter arose, provided that an \u201cagent or broker shall have the right to appeal to the corporation commission from the decision of the superintendent * *\nThus, under the statutes in effect at the time the suspension orders were entered here, Madrid\u2019s only recourse was to appeal those orders to the Corporation Commission.\nIn the most recent revision of the Insurance Code effective January 1, 1985, Section 59-32-22 does not appear. But in the new revision, Section 59A-51-19 makes some other provisions of the Insurance Code applicable to the licensing of bail bondsmen. One such provision in Article 4 is Section 59A-4-20 entitled \u201cAppeal to Court.\u201d Although this section refers to the licensee\u2019s right to appeal to the district court from an order of the superintendent, it specifies that:\n[T]he appeal shall be taken within sixty (60) days after receipt by the party appealing, of a copy of the decision on review of the superintendent\u2019s order on hearing by the corporation commission or insurance board.\nNMSA 1978, \u00a7 59A-4-20 B (Orig.Pamp. 1984).\nThus, while the newer enactment allows a licensee to appeal to the district court after a hearing by either the corporation commission or the insurance board (making both of these agencies \u201cthe board\u201d under the ULA), a direct appeal to the court still is not authorized from an order of the superintendent. Clearly, the district court did not have jurisdiction in this case.\nWe remand the appeal to the Corporation Commission for review of the superintendent\u2019s Order of Suspension, as provided in the Bail Bondsmen Licensing Law. Because of our remand, the other issues raised in this proceeding, which relate to the appeal procedures in and the decision of the district court, need not be addressed.\nThe case is remanded to the State Corporation Commission for further proceedings in accordance with this Opinion.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nFEDERICI, C.J., and SOSA, Senior Justice, concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALTERS, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward L. Chavez, Torres, Lewis & Chavez, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Maureen A. Sanders, Gen. Counsel, State Corp. Com\u2019n Dept, of Ins., Santa Fe, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "697 P.2d 125\nTony MADRID, d/b/a Tony Madrid Bonding Company, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, State Corporation Commission of the State of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee.\nNo. 15224.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 20, 1985.\nEdward L. Chavez, Torres, Lewis & Chavez, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.\nMaureen A. Sanders, Gen. Counsel, State Corp. Com\u2019n Dept, of Ins., Santa Fe, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0442-01",
  "first_page_order": 480,
  "last_page_order": 483
}