 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Romero v. Pueblo of Sandia/Sandia Casino9/29/2003
v. Reid, 2002-NMSC-015, 8, 132 N.M. 237, 46 P.3d 1237. Section 8 of the Compact contains the following language:
B. Insurance Coverage for Claims Required. The Gaming Enterprise shall maintain in effect policies of liability insurance insuring the Tribe, its agents and employees against claims, demands or liability for bodily injury and property damages by a visitor arising from an occurrence described in Subsection A of this section. The policies shall provide bodily injury and property damage coverage in an amount of a least one million dollars ($1,000,000) per person and ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per occurrence. The Tribe shall provide the State Gaming Representative annually a certificate of insurance showing that the Tribe, its agents and employees are insured to the required extent and in the circumstances described in this section.
Section 11-13-1. This language unequivocally requires insurance coverage, thus satisfying the first factor. See State v. Richardson, 113 N.M. 740, 741, 832 P.2d 801, 802 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating that statutory construction is unnecessary where "the language is clear and the meaning of the words used is unambiguous").
The second factor requires us to decide whether the Compact benefits the public. See Martinez, 2002-NMSC-015, 8. The title of Section 8, "Protection of Visitors," reflects that one of the Compact's purposes is to protect the general public. Moreover, Section 8 further provides as follows:
A. Liability to Visitors. The safety and protection of visitors to a Gaming Facility and uniformity and application of laws and jurisdiction of claims is directly related to and necessary for the regulation of Tribal gaming activities in this state. To that end, the general civil laws of New Mexico and concurrent civil jurisdiction in the State courts and the Tribal courts shall apply to a visitor's claim of liability for bodily injury or property damage proximately caused by the conduct of the Gaming Enterprise and:
1. occurring at a Gaming Facility, other premises, structures, on grounds or involving vehicles and mobile equipment used by a Gaming Enterprise;
2. arising out of a condition at the Gaming Facility or on premises or roads and passageways immediately adjoining it[.]
Section 11-13-1. In light of this language, which explicitly serves the goal of protecting visitors, we conclude that the Compact benefits the public. Accordingly, the Compact satisfies the second factor.
Finally, we consider the third factor: whether the Compact intends to negate joinder. See Martinez, 2002-NMSC-015, 8. Such intent exists only where it is expressed in the language of the law. Id. 11. Cigna points to no express language negating joinder, instead arguing that the Compact impliedly negates joinder. In the absence of express negation of joinder, however, the third factor is met. See id.
We therefore conclude that the relevant language in the Compact satisfies all three factors of the test for joinder of an insurer. We reject Cigna's suggestion that the test is limited to statutes with structure and language nearly identical to the MFRA. To the contrary, the law reflects that the three-factor test applies in a variety of contexts. See Anchor Equities, Ltd. v. Pac. Coast Am., 105 N.M. 751, 753, 737 P.2d 532, 534 (1987) (applying test with respect to issuer of fidelity bonds required under the Escrow Company Act); England v. N.M. State Highway Comm'n, 91 N.M. 406, 408-09, 575 P.2d 96, 98-99 (1978) (applying test to previous version of Tort Claims Act);
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|