{ "id": 1563619, "name": "The CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC., a New York corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HORIZON POTASH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; Amax, Inc., a New York corporation; Mountain States Mutual Life Insurance Company; Union Industrial Corporation; Barrie Hood, Inc.; Industrial Electric Service & Supply Co.; Electric Supply Co. of Carlsbad, Inc.; The Mine Supply Co. and IMSCO, a Division of The Mine Supply Co.; Uni versal Bearing & Chain, Inc.; Industrial Bus Lines, Inc.; Mining Service & Supply, Inc.; and Garrett's Supply Corporation, all New Mexico corporations; United States Bureau of Land Management, a subagency of the United States Department of the Interior, an agency of the United States Government; Construction Products Division of W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a Connecticut corporation doing business as Composite Technology; Timothy L. McLemore; Suresh K. Desal; ABC Tool & Equipment Rental, Inc., a New Mexico corporation; Emmanuel J. \"Dan\" Daniel; Sweatt Construction Co., a New Mexico partnership, and Keers Environmental, Inc., a New Mexico corporation, Defendants; MOUNTAIN STATES MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-in-Intervention-Appellant, Union Industrial Corporation, Barrie Hood, Inc.; Industrial Electric Supply Inc.; Electric Supply Co.; Mine Supply Co.; Universal Bearing & Chain; Industrial Bus Lines, Inc.; Mining Service & Supply, and Garrett's Supply Corporation, all New Mexico corporations, Plaintiffs-in-Intervention, v. THE CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant-in-Intervention-Appellee, Horizon Potash Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Horizon Gold Corporation, a/k/a Horizon Resources Corporation; Amax, Inc., a New York corporation; United States Bureau of Land Management, a subagency of the United States Department of the Interior, an agency of the United States Government, Defendants-in-Intervention", "name_abbreviation": "CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Horizon Potash Corp.", "decision_date": "1994-08-24", "docket_number": "No. 15646", "first_page": "665", "last_page": "668", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "118 N.M. 665" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "884 P.2d 821" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "116 N.M. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 727685 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261", "parenthetical": "courts ordinarily give statutes their plain meaning." }, { "page": "942", "parenthetical": "courts ordinarily give statutes their plain meaning." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/116/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "706 F.Supp. 685", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 7392522 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "691" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/706/0685-01" ] }, { "cite": "894 F.2d 311", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10530744 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "313-14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/894/0311-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 F.2d 355", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1050315 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/106/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 F.Supp. 681", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 4161273 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/26/0681-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 N.M. 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1584620 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "186" }, { "page": "236" }, { "page": "187" }, { "page": "237" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/99/0186-01" ] }, { "cite": "869 P.2d 820", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.M. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.M. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1552801 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" }, { "page": "291" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/117/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N.M. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 723274 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/113/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 P. 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "weight": 2, "year": 1910, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "606" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 N.M. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 206057 ], "year": 1910, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/15/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 N.M. 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1554413 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" }, { "page": "1088-89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/33/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 P. 842", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1911, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "843" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 N.M. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4684995 ], "year": 1911, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "331" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/16/0327-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 544, "char_count": 9355, "ocr_confidence": 0.705, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08, "percentile": 0.31060054080373023 }, "sha256": "5a8ef885651a902ffb13a9a58d1500dbc1afdf71992358cb6d133424765fb697", "simhash": "1:3ea05c9b1c09a549", "word_count": 1434 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:20.619055+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BLACK and FLORES, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "The CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC., a New York corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HORIZON POTASH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; Amax, Inc., a New York corporation; Mountain States Mutual Life Insurance Company; Union Industrial Corporation; Barrie Hood, Inc.; Industrial Electric Service & Supply Co.; Electric Supply Co. of Carlsbad, Inc.; The Mine Supply Co. and IMSCO, a Division of The Mine Supply Co.; Uni versal Bearing & Chain, Inc.; Industrial Bus Lines, Inc.; Mining Service & Supply, Inc.; and Garrett\u2019s Supply Corporation, all New Mexico corporations; United States Bureau of Land Management, a subagency of the United States Department of the Interior, an agency of the United States Government; Construction Products Division of W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a Connecticut corporation doing business as Composite Technology; Timothy L. McLemore; Suresh K. Desal; ABC Tool & Equipment Rental, Inc., a New Mexico corporation; Emmanuel J. \u201cDan\u201d Daniel; Sweatt Construction Co., a New Mexico partnership, and Keers Environmental, Inc., a New Mexico corporation, Defendants. MOUNTAIN STATES MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-in-Intervention-Appellant, Union Industrial Corporation, Barrie Hood, Inc.; Industrial Electric Supply Inc.; Electric Supply Co.; Mine Supply Co.; Universal Bearing & Chain; Industrial Bus Lines, Inc.; Mining Service & Supply, and Garrett\u2019s Supply Corporation, all New Mexico corporations, Plaintiffs-in-Intervention, v. THE CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant-in-Intervention-Appellee, Horizon Potash Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Horizon Gold Corporation, a/k/a Horizon Resources Corporation; Amax, Inc., a New York corporation; United States Bureau of Land Management, a subagency of the United States Department of the Interior, an agency of the United States Government, Defendants-in-Intervention." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPICKARD, Judge.\nThe mechanics\u2019 and materialmen\u2019s lien statute for labor, equipment, and materials furnished in certain projects provides that:\nEvery person performing labor upon, providing ... equipment ... for, or furnishing materials to be used in the construction, alteration or repair of any mining claim ..., [or] who performs labor in any mining claim ... has a lien upon the same for the work or labor done, [and] for the ... agreed upon charge for the ... equipment ... provided ... or materials furnished____\nNMSA 1978, \u00a7 48-2-2 (Cum.Supp.1992). The question we address today is whether unpaid workers\u2019 compensation insurance premiums are labor, equipment, or materials as those words are used in this statute. We hold that they are not.\nDefendant Horizon Potash Corporation operates a potash mine on mining claims in Eddy County, New Mexico. Plaintiff, CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc., loaned Horizon money. When the loan was in default, CIT filed suit to enforce or foreclose its security interest in collateral at Horizon\u2019s mine. Before CIT filed suit, Plaintiff-in-Intervention Mountain States Mutual Life Insurance Company had filed a claim of lien for unpaid workers\u2019 compensation premiums for insurance Mountain States provided on behalf of the workers at the potash mine.\nBased on these facts, CIT filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the workers\u2019 compensation premiums were not lienable under Section 48-2-2. Mountain States did not disagree with the facts but claimed that the premiums were lienable under Section 48-2-2. The district court granted CIT\u2019s motion for summary judgment, and Mountain States appeals. We affirm.\nWe hold that workers\u2019 compensation premiums are not lienable under Section 48-2-2 because they are neither labor, equipment, nor materials as contemplated by that section. Mountain States does not contend that they are equipment or materials under Section 48-2-2. Rather, Mountain States limits its contention to an argument that the premiums are a component of labor because they are indispensable to the lawful performance of labor at the mine. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 52-l-6(C) (Repl.Pamp.1991) (requiring employers to carry workers\u2019 compensation insurance).\nAlthough the mechanics\u2019 and materialmen\u2019s lien statute, being remedial in nature, is to be liberally construed, Lyons v. Howard, 16 N.M. 327, 331, 117 P. 842, 843 (1911), no New Mexico cases have construed the \u201clabor\u201d portion of the statute to apply to anything other than labor. In Mitchell v. McCutcheon, 33 N.M. 78, 84, 260 P. 1086, 1088-89 (1927), our Supreme Court relied on the earlier case of Gray v. Pumice Stone Co., 15 N.M. 478, 110 P. 603 (1910). In Gray our Supreme Court read the statute expansively and said that \u201clabor of any class bearing a direct relation to the mining operations\u201d would be a sufficient basis for a claim of lien. Id. at 487, 110 P. at 606. However, in both of those cases, the hen was claimed for the cost of the actual labor \u2014 work performed in and around the mines or work performed off the mine premises but that was essential to the mining operations.\nWhen New Mexico cases do not directly answer the question presented, we look for guidance in analogous law in other states or the federal system. See Lowery v. Atterbury, 113 N.M. 71, 74 n. 2, 823 P.2d 313, 316 n. 2 (1992); Yount v. Millington, 117 N.M. 95, 103, 869 P.2d 283, 291 (Ct.App.1993), cert. denied, 117 N.M. 121, 869 P.2d 820 (1994). In State ex rel. W.M. Carroll & Co. v. K.L. House Construction Co., 99 N.M. 186, 656 P.2d 236 (1982), our Supreme Court noted that New Mexico\u2019s \u201cLittle Miller Act\u201d was modelled after the federal Miller Act, both of which are \u201cintended to provide a remedy equivalent to that of a materialmen\u2019s hen, which ordinarily may not attach to government property.\u201d Id. at 186, 656 P.2d at 236. Both the state and federal Miller Acts apply to people who have \u201cfurnished labor or material\u201d in the construction of projects pursuant to government contracts. See id. at 187, 656 P.2d at 237. Thus, federal decisions considering whether required workers\u2019 compensation insurance premiums are lienable under the federal Miller Act may be persuasive for our purposes.\nWith the exception of one heavily criticized federal district court case that was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals on procedural grounds, United States ex rel. Watsabaugh & Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co., 26 F.Supp. 681 (D.Mont.1938), aff'd on different grounds, 106 F.2d 355 (9th Cir.1939), the overwhelming weight of authority in the federal courts is to the effect that it would be an unwarranted and overexpansive reading of the Miller Act to allow the words \u201clabor and materials\u201d to encompass workers\u2019 compensation insurance premiums. See United States ex rel. Cobb-Strecker-Dunphy & Zimmerman, Inc. v. M.A. Mortenson Co., 894 F.2d 311, 313-14 (8th Cir.1990), and eases cited therein. We find ourselves in agreement with the following reasoning of the lower court in the Mortenson case:\nIf the Court were to adopt the rule established in Seaboard Surety and advocated by plaintiff here, no functional limitations would exist on Miller Act claims. Almost any cost of doing business could be considered \u201cindispensable to the prosecution of the work provided for in [federal] contracts.\u201d ... Such a result would clearly expand the coverage of the Miller Act far beyond the plain meaning of its terms.\nUnited States ex rel. Cobb-Strecker-Dunphy & Zimmerman, Inc. v. M.A. Mortenson Co., 706 F.Supp. 685, 691 (D.Minn.1989) (citation omitted; bracket in original), aff'd, 894 F.2d 311 (8th Cir.1990). Thus, we follow the weight of both authority and common sense in holding that the plain meaning of the words \u201cperforming labor\u201d in Section 48-2-2 is limited to doing work.\nAs noted by CIT, Mountain States\u2019 claim is not measured by any calculation of wages or other measure of labor, but instead is a contract for an obligation of indemnification based on risk and other complex factors having little to do with any benefit conferred on the mine. Thus, applying the plain meaning of the word in the statute, mine workers may have liens for the value of their labor; insurance companies providing insurance to the mines may not. See Huntington Nat\u2019l Bank v. Sproul, 116 N.M. 254, 261, 861 P.2d 935, 942 (1993) (courts ordinarily give statutes their plain meaning.)\nOur holding regarding the proper interpretation of Section 48-2-2 makes it unnecessary to discuss NMSA 1978, Section 48-2-17 (Repl.Pamp.1987), which CIT contends prohibits a lien in this situation. Section 48-2-17 provides that unpaid workers\u2019 compensation insurance premiums furnished to certain contractors are \u201cmaterial\u201d to those contractors so that they may be recovered from the contractors\u2019 performance bonds, \u201cas though a lien had been filed against the improved premises, but [the entity furnishing same] shall have no lien against the improved premises.\u201d This ease deals exclusively with owners, not contractors; therefore, Section 48-2-17 does not apply.\nThe summary judgment in favor of CIT is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nBLACK and FLORES, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PICKARD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Gail Gottlieb, Sutin, Thayer & Brown, P.C., Albuquerque, for plaintiff, defendant-in-intervention-appellee.", "W.T. Martin, Jr., Law Offices of W.T. Martin, Jr., P.A., Carlsbad, for defendants, plaintiff-in-intervention-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "884 P.2d 821\nThe CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC., a New York corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HORIZON POTASH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; Amax, Inc., a New York corporation; Mountain States Mutual Life Insurance Company; Union Industrial Corporation; Barrie Hood, Inc.; Industrial Electric Service & Supply Co.; Electric Supply Co. of Carlsbad, Inc.; The Mine Supply Co. and IMSCO, a Division of The Mine Supply Co.; Uni versal Bearing & Chain, Inc.; Industrial Bus Lines, Inc.; Mining Service & Supply, Inc.; and Garrett\u2019s Supply Corporation, all New Mexico corporations; United States Bureau of Land Management, a subagency of the United States Department of the Interior, an agency of the United States Government; Construction Products Division of W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a Connecticut corporation doing business as Composite Technology; Timothy L. McLemore; Suresh K. Desal; ABC Tool & Equipment Rental, Inc., a New Mexico corporation; Emmanuel J. \u201cDan\u201d Daniel; Sweatt Construction Co., a New Mexico partnership, and Keers Environmental, Inc., a New Mexico corporation, Defendants. MOUNTAIN STATES MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-in-Intervention-Appellant, Union Industrial Corporation, Barrie Hood, Inc.; Industrial Electric Supply Inc.; Electric Supply Co.; Mine Supply Co.; Universal Bearing & Chain; Industrial Bus Lines, Inc.; Mining Service & Supply, and Garrett\u2019s Supply Corporation, all New Mexico corporations, Plaintiffs-in-Intervention, v. THE CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant-in-Intervention-Appellee, Horizon Potash Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Horizon Gold Corporation, a/k/a Horizon Resources Corporation; Amax, Inc., a New York corporation; United States Bureau of Land Management, a subagency of the United States Department of the Interior, an agency of the United States Government, Defendants-in-Intervention.\nNo. 15646.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nAug. 24, 1994.\nGail Gottlieb, Sutin, Thayer & Brown, P.C., Albuquerque, for plaintiff, defendant-in-intervention-appellee.\nW.T. Martin, Jr., Law Offices of W.T. Martin, Jr., P.A., Carlsbad, for defendants, plaintiff-in-intervention-appellant." }, "file_name": "0665-01", "first_page_order": 695, "last_page_order": 698 }