Rust Tractor Co. v. Consolidated Constructors, Inc.

10 Citing cases

  1. United States v. TK Constr., US, LLC

    Case No.: 1:14-cv-00134-REB (D. Idaho Jun. 28, 2017)

    In a New Mexico case, a policy "insure[d] against all risks" with the exception of "loss or damage due and confined to . . . mechanical breakdown or failure . . . ." Rust Tractor, Co. v. Consolidated Constructors, Inc., 526 P.2d 800, 802 (Ct. App. N.M. 1974). In Rust Tractor, a failure to maintain necessary oil levels caused a mechanical breakdown of a construction loader.

  2. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee v. Insurance Co. of North America

    554 F. Supp. 1075 (W.D. Pa. 1983)   Cited 8 times
    Drawing a distinction between excluded peril and "loss caused by" excluded peril because only two of the exclusions within the same policy were preceded by the "loss caused by" language

    1979) (Exclusionary clause specifically provided policy did not insure against "loss or damage through" wear and tear, and gradual deterioration); Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Guyton, 471 F. Supp. 1126 (C.D.Cal. 1979) (Exclusions to all risk policy of insurance specifically stated the policy did not insure against "loss caused by or resulting from" the enumerated exclusions); Essex House v. St. Paul Fire Marine Insurance Co., 404 F. Supp. 978 (S.D.Ohio 1975) ("This rider does not insure against loss caused by wear and tear . . . mechanical breakdown); Connie's Construction Co., Inc. v. Continental Western Insurance Co., 227 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa 1975) (Policy excluded "loss or damage due and confined to" mechanical breakdown); Metal Cutting Specialty Co., Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 227 So.2d 790 (La.App. 1969) (Policy excluded " loss, damage or expense caused by or resulting from wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure, inherent, vice, latent defect . . ."); Rust Tractor Company v. Consolidated Constructors, Inc., 526 P.2d 800 (N.M.App. 1974) (Policy excluded "loss or damage due and confined to delay, wear and tear, rust, inherent vice, latent defect, extreme of temperature, mechanical breakdown or failure"). (Emphasis supplied).

  3. Neal J. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't

    No. A-1-CA-40617 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2024)

    Because, as we will explain, the Department has not established that the AHO's second rationale is erroneous, we do not reach the merits of the Department's arguments challenging the AHO's first rationale. See Rust Tractor Co. v. Consol. Constructors, Inc., 1974-NMCA-096, ยถ 7, 86 N.M. 658, 526 P.2d 800 (holding that the argument was "without merit" where an alternative basis for the trial court's conclusion was not challenged).

  4. Frietze v. Everhart

    No. A-1-CA-38608 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2022)

    And when a trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not challenged on appeal, they are "deemed true and controlling." Rust Tractor Co. v. Consol. Constructors, Inc., 1974-NMCA-096, ยถ 7, 86 N.M. 658, 526 P.2d 800 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, even if we were to accept Plaintiff's argument regarding abandonment, we would nevertheless affirm the district court's unchallenged conclusion that Plaintiff overburdened the easement-a conclusion that adequately supports the judgment.

  5. Webb v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs.

    No. A-1-CA-37404 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2021)

    Because we must accept the district court's unchallenged conclusion that the expert opinions that PHS sought to introduce would not have been helpful to the jury, reversal would not be warranted even if we were to agree with PHS that Dr. Langemo was qualified to opine on causation. See Rust Tractor Co. v. Consol. Constructors, Inc., 1974-NMCA-096, ยถ 7, 86 N.M. 658, 526 P.2d 800 (affirming based on the appellant's failure to challenge an alternative basis for the district court's ruling). We therefore affirm the order excluding Dr. Langemo's causation testimony without reaching the issue of her qualifications.

  6. Parkview Cmty. Ditch Ass'n v. Peper

    No. A-1-CA-36034 (N.M. Ct. App. Jun. 4, 2019)

    Because we must accept that unchallenged conclusion, whether the Pepers sought to enforce the OMA in accordance with Section 10-15-13(B) has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal. See Rust Tractor Co. v. Consol. Constructors, Inc., 1974-NMCA-096, ยถ 7, 86 N.M. 658, 526 P.2d 800. The district court's substantial compliance conclusion adequately supports the district court's judgment.

  7. Treloar v. Cty. of Chaves

    130 N.M. 794 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that because "severance pay is deemed to be in the nature of wages that have been earned," such pay was in return for consideration and not in violation of the anti-donation clause

    It did not make this argument to the trial court. Rust Tractor Co. v. Consol. Constructors, Inc., 86 N.M. 658, 660, 526 P.2d 800, 802 (Ct.App. 1974) (stating that a party cannot change his theory on appeal). As affirmative defenses, the County claimed that liquidated damages cannot be enforced and punitive damages cannot be awarded against a government entity.

  8. Associated Aviation Underwriters v. George Koch Sons, Inc.

    712 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that an exclusion was inapplicable and the trial court's judgment that the insured was entitled to insurance coverage was not clearly erroneous

    And, Koch reasons, because the negligence of a third party is the cause of the loss and not specifically excluded from coverage, the damage is covered under the all-risk policy. In support of its contentions, Koch directs us to Rust Tractor Company v. Consolidated Constructors, Inc., 526 P.2d 800 (N.M. App. 1974). In Rust Tractor, Consolidated Constructors (lessee) leased a loader from Rust Tractor Company (lessor).

  9. Harleysville Mut. Ins. v. Five Points Fire

    444 A.2d 304 (Del. Super. Ct. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    On the other hand, other cases hold that where negligent maintenance or operation of equipment results in its mechanical breakdown, the breakdown is the mere effect, rather than the cause of the loss, and find the policy exclusion inapplicable. Connie's Const. v. Continental W. Ins., Iowa, 227 N.W.2d 204 (1975); Rust Tractor Co. v. Consolidated Constructors, Inc., N.M.App., 526 P.2d 800 (1974). There is no doubt that the equipment ultimately broke and hurt Ross and Younker.

  10. Rodemich v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    637 P.2d 748 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 9 times

    Appellees acknowledge that there are no cases directly on point relating to this fact situation, but cite a number of cases and authorities holding and stating that where a risk insured against operates to subject the insured property to a risk not insured against, the loss is covered. Rust Tractor Co. v. Consolidated Constructors, Inc., 86 N.M. 658, 526 P.2d 800 (1974); Annot., 160 A.L.R. 946 (1946); 5 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, ยง 3803 (1970). The simple answer to this contention is that the policy sub judice did not insure appellees against the risk of collision and therefore the cited authorities are not particularly helpful.