{
  "id": 5353859,
  "name": "Monica QUINTANA, Administratrix of the Estate of Irving Leo Quintana, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOLAN BROS., INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Quintana v. Nolan Bros.",
  "decision_date": "1969-08-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 322",
  "first_page": "589",
  "last_page": "591",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 N.M. 589"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "458 P.2d 841"
    }
  ],
  "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": "62 N.M. 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2713761
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/62/0120-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.M. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842362
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/57/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 576",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2808258
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0576-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 378,
    "char_count": 6707,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.682,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8300329421515756e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7206178815830575
    },
    "sha256": "3a120245de5774b3f63d0242e7a67a6d8063bb18eb37320fbcf136396d5b24a1",
    "simhash": "1:5434444e912c5685",
    "word_count": 1068
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:41:23.226975+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SPIESS, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Monica QUINTANA, Administratrix of the Estate of Irving Leo Quintana, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOLAN BROS., INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nWhat is the effect of an employer\u2019s \u25a0failure to comply with the filing provisions of \u00a7 59-10-3, N.M.S.A.1963 (Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 1, Supp.1967)?\nOn October 31, 1967, Irving Leo Quintana suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Quintana died as a result of the injury. His administratrix sued Quintana\u2019s employer, alleging wrongful death. The employer moved to dismiss, asserting its liability was limited to that provided under our Workmen\u2019s Compensation law. The trial court sustained the motion. Plaintiff appeals.\nAt the time of the accidental injury the employer had a policy of workmen\u2019s compensation insurance. The policy made the insurer directly and primarily liable to the workman for compensation benefits for which his employer was liable, In the event of the workman\u2019s death, the insurer was liable to his dependents for compensation benefits. The policy was an obligation upon which judgment might\u2019 issue. Section 59-10-3, supra.\nThe policy was not filed until January 15, 1968. This is seventy-six days after the accident. We do not know when Quintana was employed so we cannot\u2019 state the elapsed time between the tim\u00e9' for filing under \u00a7 59-10-3, supra, and' the time ' of actual filing.\nVarious provisions of our Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act limit the liability of the employer to those benefits set forth in the Act. See \u00a7\u00a7 59-10-4(F), 59-10-5, 59-10-6, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 1). Plaintiff contends these limitations should not apply because of the delay in filing the insurance policy. She contends the filing requirement is mandatory.\nWe assume the \u201cshall file\u201d provision of \u00a7 59-10-3, supra, is mandatory. See Laws 1969, ch. 132, \u00a7 1. What is the effect of the employer\u2019s non-compliance? Section 59-10-25(D), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 1, Supp.1967) provides the non-filing employer is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine. Under \u00a7 59-10-31, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 1), a failure to comply with \u00a7 59-10-3, supra, subjects the employer to an injunction \u201c * * * from continuing his business operations until he has complied * *\nA delay in filing, however, does not necessarily remove the limitations on the employer\u2019s liability. Mirabal v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 77 N.M. 576, 425 P.2d 740 (1967) states:\n\"The purpose * * * under an elective act such as ours is to cause the employer to obtain compensation protection. * * '* It would seem contrary to legislative intent that any technical delay which in no way prejudices a claimant would give rise to ' a common-law suit.\u201d\nIn Mirabal, as here, the employer had not filed the insurance policy prior to the accident. Ip Mirabal, the technical delay in filing did not give rise to a common-law suit. Here, the technical delay does not permit a suit for wrongful death. The delay does not remove the limitation on the employer\u2019s liability because the statutory p\u00fcirp\u00fc\u00e1e is'met when the employer obtains \u201ccompensation protection\u201d for his workmen.\nPlaintiff contends, however, that in a workmen\u2019s compensation case, there would be no jurisdiction over an insurance company issuing a workmen\u2019s compensation insurance policy unless that policy was on file. Section 59-10-13.7, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 9, pt, 1) provides for service of process upon a defendant insurer. If an insurer, named as a defendant in a workmen\u2019s compensation' suit, was served pursuant to \u00a7 59-10-13.7, supra, we fail to understand how a failure to file the policy pursuant to \u00a7 59-10-3, supra, would deprive the court of jurisdiction over that insurer. Further, we fail to understand how this jurisdictional contention applies in this appeal. The issue here is whether the employer\u2019s liability is limited to that provided by our Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. Jurisdiction over the insurance company is not involved.\nPlaintiff asserts that if the limitation on an employer\u2019s liability is not removed by the failure to file the policy within the time provided by \u00a7 59-10-3, supra, then an insurance company, or an employer, might \u201chide\u201d the fact of compensation coverage. The implication is that once a workman was injured, the insurer or employer would then decide whether disclosure of the policy would be advantageous to them. Whether an insurer does or does not disclose the policy is simply not involved. Section 59-10-3, supra, places the duty of filing upon the employer, not the insurer. If the employer pursued a course indicating there was no compensation insurance, it might be estopped to show there was coverage in fact, compare Garrison v. Bonfield, 57 N.M. 533, 260 P.2d 718 (1953), and might subject itself to the liability resulting from-the failure to provide insurance. See Addison v. Tessier, 62 N.M. 120, 305 P.2d 1067 (1957). These speculations, however, are not our answer to this contention. Our answer is that plaintiff\u2019s argument is simply not applicable to the facts of this case. Here, the policy was on file before either of the two suits, involving Quintana\u2019s death, were filed \u2014 this suit and the workmen\u2019s compensation suit.\nPlaintiff also claims that the filing requirement is for the benefit of the workman. We agree that if the filing requirements are met the workman benefits by knowing the employer has -undertaken to secure payment of compensation to the workman and by knowing the name and post office address of each party to the undertaking. Section 59-10-3, supra. Although there was a delay due to the late filing, those benefits were obtained in this case.\nPlaintiff, however, does not have in mind the benefits consisting of the information made available by the filing. The \u201cbenefit\u201d to the workmen which she contemplates is the removal of the limitation on the employer\u2019s liability for failure to meet the filing requirements. Since compensation insurance has been provided in this case, and there being no contention that the compensation claim for Quintana\u2019s death has been prejudiced by the delay in filing the policy, the employer\u2019s liability is under our compensation law. Mirabal v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., supra. The \u201cbenefit\u201d that plaintiff seeks \u2014a way to avoid the limitations of a workmen\u2019s compensation claim- \u2014 is not available to her under the facts of this \u25a0case.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. T. Montoya, George H. Perez, Montoya & Montoya, Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "Leslie D. Ringer, Sante Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "458 P.2d 841\nMonica QUINTANA, Administratrix of the Estate of Irving Leo Quintana, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOLAN BROS., INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 322.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nAug. 29, 1969.\nA. T. Montoya, George H. Perez, Montoya & Montoya, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nLeslie D. Ringer, Sante Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0589-01",
  "first_page_order": 645,
  "last_page_order": 647
}