{ "id": 1217132, "name": "FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zeke C. SEDILLO, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Farmers Insurance v. Sedillo", "decision_date": "2000-10-02", "docket_number": "No. 20,876", "first_page": "674", "last_page": "676", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "129 N.M. 674" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "2000-NMCA-094" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "11 P.3d 1236" } ], "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": "86 F.3d 1007", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 452561 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1014" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/86/1007-01" ] }, { "cite": "415 N.W.2d 876", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10669636 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/415/0876-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 N.M. 813", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1558984 ], "weight": 12, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "814" }, { "page": "995" }, { "page": "818" }, { "page": "999" }, { "page": "819" }, { "page": "1000" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/120/0813-01" ] }, { "cite": "1999-NMCA-158", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 106558 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/128/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "2000-NMCA-095", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 1217116 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/129/0672-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 425, "char_count": 5804, "ocr_confidence": 0.69, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5351928685251713e-07, "percentile": 0.6718503665657728 }, "sha256": "dd8461464b22b63c88e55fa70c5ccc3eb92daa3ef9ff5f58748f6a6e5b0c40db", "simhash": "1:982710a8356fd56a", "word_count": 943 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:00:16.735179+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "PICKARD, C.J., and WECHSLER, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zeke C. SEDILLO, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\n{1} This ease and the related ease of Barncastle v. American National Property and Casualty Cos., 2000-NMCA-095, 129 N.M. 672, 11 P.3d 1234 (2000), provide us with the opportunity to explain when uninsured motorist coverage is available under circumstances in which the use of the vehicle is somewhat attenuated from the incident. Defendant Zeke C. Sedillo appeals from the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment dismissing his claims seeking uninsured motorist coverage for injuries he suffered after a football game. We affirm.\nFACTS AND PROCEEDINGS\n{2} At about 9:30 on September 13,1998, Sedillo was setting up grills with his friends and family for a tailgate party in the University of New Mexico stadium parking lot. An unknown driver (Driver) of a pick-up truck sped through the row of cars near Sedillo\u2019s group, particularly close to Sedillo\u2019s daughter. Sedillo and others in his party yelled at Driver to slow down. Driver responded with profanity and pulled into a parking space about 40 yards away.\n{3} Sedillo followed the truck on foot. After Driver alighted from his truck, Sedillo asked him why he was driving so fast around the children. Again, Driver responded with profanity as he rummaged in the toolbox of his truck. By that time Driver\u2019s two passengers were approaching Sedillo quickly with their fists clenched in a threatening way. Turning toward the two, Sedillo punched one of them. Shortly thereafter, someone hit Sedillo from behind with a hammer. At that point, Sedillo was hit by a number of people with the hammer and bare fists until members of Sedillo\u2019s group broke it up. By the time the police arrived, Driver and truck were gone. Sedillo suffered substantial personal injuries.\n{4} Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona (Farmers) provided automobile insurance to Sedillo under two policies which contained coverage for damages caused by uninsured motorists. In response to Sedillo\u2019s claims and request for arbitration under the uninsured motorist policies, Farmers filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in district court, claiming that the policies did not provide coverage for any damages resulting from the September 13, 1998, incident. After discovery as to how the incident occurred, both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and Sedillo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers, ruling that the applicable policies of insurance did not provide uninsured motorist coverage under the circumstances in which Sedillo was injured.\nLAW\nStandard of Review\n{5} The standard of review on appeal from summary judgment is de novo. See Martin v. West Am. Ins. Co., 1999-NMCA-158, \u00b6 11, 128 N.M. 446, 993 P.2d 763. Where no material facts are in dispute (the deposition of Sedillo comprises the entire evidence before the court), we are in as good a position as the district court to resolve questions of law. See id.\nInsurance Policy Coverage\n{6} We agree with the parties that the controlling authority here is Britt v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance Co., 120 N.M. 813, 907 P.2d 994 (1995). There, two motor vehicles were involved in a minor traffic accident. See id. at 814, 907 P.2d at 995. A passenger from one vehicle got out and stabbed Britt, who was the passenger in the other vehicle. See id. Britt was unable to learn the identity of either the driver of the other vehicle or of the assailant. See id.\n{7} The Britt court determined that intentional torts may be covered by uninsured motorist insurance under proper circumstances. See id. at 818, 907 P.2d at 999. Using a three-part test, the trier of fact \u201cfirst considers whether there is a sufficient causal nexus between the use of the uninsured vehicle and the resulting harm.\u201d Id, The causal nexus requires the vehicle to be an \u201c \u2018active accessory in causing the injury.\u201d Id. (quoting Continental W. Ins. Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn.1987)).\n{8} Second, if the trier of fact concludes there is a sufficient causal nexus, then it next considers \u201cwhether an act of independent significance broke the causal link between the use of the vehicle and the harm suffered.\u201d Britt, 120 N.M. at 819, 907 P.2d at 1000. Finally, the trier of fact must \u201cconsider whether the \u2018use\u2019 to which the vehicle was put was a normal use of that vehicle.\u201d Id.\nDISCUSSION\n{9} Using the test enunciated in Britt and elucidated in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Blystra, 86 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir.1996), the uninsured motorist policies do not cover this assault. The truck was not an \u201cactive accessory\u201d in the assault. Sedillo\u2019s claim therefore fails due to lack of sufficient causal nexus.\n{10} Furthermore, although Driver\u2019s use of the truck precipitated Sedillo\u2019s reaction, an \u201cact of independent significance\u201d interrupted any causation of the assault. Sedillo walked over to Driver after he had parked his track, continued criticizing Driver\u2019s driving in the parking lot, and threw the first punch. As stated in Blystra, the Britt court \u201cmerely recognized that, given the right facts, the causal chain might not be broken even though the assailant commits his assault after exiting the stopped vehicle.\u201d Blystra, 86 F.3d at 1014. The facts here do not permit a reasonable inference of an unbroken causal chain to be drawn.\nCONCLUSION\n{11} We affirm the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of Farmers.\n{12} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nPICKARD, C.J., and WECHSLER, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SUTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ruth Fuess, Millei\u2019, Stratvert & Torgerson, P.A. Albuquerque, NM for Appellee", "Pedro G. Rael, Rael & Sanchez, Attorneys, Los Lunas, NM for Appellant" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "11 P.3d 1236\n2000-NMCA-094\nFARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zeke C. SEDILLO, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 20,876.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nOct. 2, 2000.\nRuth Fuess, Millei\u2019, Stratvert & Torgerson, P.A. Albuquerque, NM for Appellee\nPedro G. Rael, Rael & Sanchez, Attorneys, Los Lunas, NM for Appellant" }, "file_name": "0674-01", "first_page_order": 708, "last_page_order": 710 }