New Mexico

Personal injury claims must be filed within three years of accrual under NMSA § 37-1-8. This three-year period applies broadly to negligence-based tort claims and intentional tort claims resulting in personal injury. The three-year general tort period is more generous than the two-year periods in Colorado, Texas, Georgia, and most southern and mountain west states, providing additional time for case development and intake.

Wrongful death claims must be filed within three years of date of death under the New Mexico Wrongful Death Act at NMSA § 41-2-2. The three-year period parallels the general tort period and avoids the wrongful death/PI mismatch found in New York (two-year wrongful death vs. three-year PI) that can create procedural traps for derivative death claims.

Medical malpractice operates under a distinctive framework at NMSA § 41-5-13 (the Medical Malpractice Act): three years from the date of the act of malpractice, with limited discovery rule applications for minors and certain other categories. The flat three-year-from-act structure (rather than a discovery-plus-repose framework like California, Georgia, or Illinois) makes timely identification of the specific negligent act especially important in NM medical malpractice intake.

Written contract claims must be filed within six years of breach under NMSA § 37-1-3. New Mexico's six-year written contract period parallels New York's six-year period and is significantly longer than Colorado's three-year period or California's four-year period. Oral contract claims have a four-year period under NMSA § 37-1-4, half the written-contract period, making the writing/non-writing distinction meaningful. UCC sale-of-goods claims follow a four-year period from breach under NMSA § 55-2-725.

Fraud claims must be filed within four years of accrual under NMSA § 37-1-4, with the discovery rule providing that accrual is delayed until the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The four-year fraud period is shorter than New York's six-year-or-two-from-discovery framework but longer than California's three-year period under CCP § 338(d).

Defamation (libel and slander) follows the general three-year tort period under NMSA § 37-1-8, rather than the shortened one-year periods common in many states (NY, CA, DC, GA, IL). New Mexico's longer defamation period provides more time for defamation matters to develop and is operationally favorable for plaintiffs compared to the firm's other service area states. Practitioners moving from one-year defamation jurisdictions should adjust intake assumptions accordingly.

New Mexico Tort Claims Act notice requirements under NMSA § 41-4-16 (covered separately) impose additional procedural deadlines that operate alongside these SOL periods when governmental defendants are involved. The 90-day TCA notice period is one of the shortest governmental notice periods among the firm's service area states. Missing the TCA notice deadline can bar the claim independently of the SOL period.

New Mexico applies pure comparative fault, established by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc. (1982). The court abandoned the prior contributory negligence rule in favor of a pure comparative system: a plaintiff's recovery is diminished by their percentage of fault, but not barred regardless of percentage. A plaintiff found 99 percent at fault still recovers one percent of their damages.

New Mexico's pure comparative framework was adopted by judicial decision rather than statute, paralleling California's judicial adoption in Li v. Yellow Cab (1975) and Tennessee's judicial adoption in McIntyre v. Balentine (1992). The Bartlett framework places New Mexico among the firm's six pure comparative service area states (California, New York, New Mexico, Arizona, Louisiana, Washington) alongside the modified comparative majority.

New Mexico's several liability framework is codified at NMSA § 41-3A-1, enacted in 1987 to abolish joint and several liability for most tort claims following the adoption of pure comparative fault under Bartlett. Under § 41-3A-1, each defendant is liable only for the percentage of damages assessed against that defendant. There is no joint liability for damages allocated to other tortfeasors in most tort categories.

The combination of pure comparative fault (Bartlett) and several-only liability (§ 41-3A-1) reflects New Mexico's policy choice to allow recovery for partially-at-fault plaintiffs while limiting each defendant's exposure to that defendant's proportionate share. This structure differs from California's hybrid framework (pure comparative under Li v. Yellow Cab with Proposition 51 several liability for non-economic damages only) and Washington's pure comparative with joint liability retention for specific categories under RCW 4.22.070.

NMSA § 41-3A-1(C) preserves joint and several liability for certain categories, including intentional torts, concert of action, vicarious liability situations (such as employer-employee), and product liability claims involving chain-of-distribution defendants. These exceptions are narrowly construed, but practitioners must verify whether their specific claim falls into an exception category before assuming several-only liability applies. The exception categories are operationally important for case development against multiple defendants.

The New Mexico Tort Claims Act under NMSA § 41-4-16 requires written notice within 90 days of the occurrence giving rise to the claim for any tort claim against the State of New Mexico, state agencies, or local public bodies. The 90-day period is one of the shortest governmental notice periods among the firm's service area states, significantly shorter than California's six-month Government Claims Act period, Colorado's 182-day CGIA notice, Georgia's six-month municipal Ante Litem, and DC's six-month § 12-309 period.

The notice must be presented to the appropriate official: the risk management division of the General Services Department for claims against the State, or the mayor, executive, or chief executive of the relevant local public body for claims against local entities. Without timely written notice, no claim can be brought against the public entity regardless of the underlying merits of the case.

The § 41-4-16 notice must contain specific information including the time, place, and circumstances of the loss or injury, along with the identity of the claimant and the public entity or employee involved. New Mexico courts apply strict construction to the content requirements, holding that substantial compliance is generally insufficient if material information is missing or vague. Failure to provide timely written notice with adequate content bars the claim regardless of the underlying merits.

The strict construction principle in New Mexico parallels the approaches in DC (§ 12-309), Colorado (CGIA), Georgia (Ante Litem), and California (Government Claims Act). The combination of strict construction with the unusually short 90-day deadline makes New Mexico one of the more demanding jurisdictions for tort claims against governmental defendants in the firm's service area set.

The 90-day notice requirement applies to all tort claims against state and local governmental entities except where specific statutory exceptions apply. The Act covers negligence-based tort claims, intentional tort claims involving governmental employees acting within scope of employment, and most other tort theories against governmental defendants in New Mexico.

The § 41-4-16 notice requirement operates as a condition precedent to suit. Missing the 90-day deadline bars the claim independently of the SOL period under NMSA § 37-1-8. Limited exceptions to the strict notice requirement exist, including the discovery rule for latent injuries and tolling provisions for minor claimants. These exceptions are narrowly construed and most failures to provide timely written notice are fatal to the claim.

New Mexico's Fraud Against Taxpayers Act under NMSA § 44-9 et seq. provides a broad qui tam framework targeting fraud against the State of New Mexico. The statute extends qui tam coverage beyond Medicaid to fraud against the State in any context, covering fraudulent claims for payment from the State, fraudulent submissions to state programs, and other categories of fraud. The Fraud Against Taxpayers Act closely tracks the federal False Claims Act structure with qui tam relator provisions, government intervention procedures, treble damages, civil penalties, and relator's share of recoveries.

New Mexico's Medicaid False Claims Act under NMSA § 27-14 provides a Medicaid-specific qui tam framework operating alongside the broader Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. The Medicaid FCA was enacted to qualify under the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), which provides enhanced state share of Medicaid fraud recoveries when state FCAs meet specific federal requirements. The dual-statute structure means that Medicaid fraud claims may be brought under either or both statutes depending on the specific allegations and recovery objectives.

The dual NM FCA framework places New Mexico among the small number of states maintaining both a broader general state FCA and a Medicaid-specific FCA, alongside Georgia (Taxpayer Protection FCA + Medicaid FCA) and Tennessee (broader Tennessee FCA + Tennessee Medicaid FCA). This structure provides comprehensive coverage that extends beyond Medicaid-only jurisdictions (Colorado, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington) and broader-only jurisdictions (most other broad qui tam states).

New Mexico FCA cases are filed under seal in New Mexico state court and served on the New Mexico Attorney General. The intervention decision is coordinated through the Attorney General's office, with seal extensions common as the AG evaluates the matter. The intervention timeline and decision process parallels federal FCA practice in most material respects.

Relator's share of recoveries parallels the federal framework: 15 to 25 percent if the AG intervenes, or 25 to 30 percent if the AG declines and the relator proceeds alone, subject to framework-specific variations. Parallel federal-state coordination is common when alleged fraud implicates both state and federal funding, with relators frequently filing parallel federal qui tam complaints under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 alongside the state FCA action.

The Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire, which burned from April 2022 through August 2022 in northern New Mexico, was the largest wildfire in state history at approximately 341,000 acres. The fire was caused by U.S. Forest Service prescribed burns that escaped control: the Las Dispensas prescribed burn (later the Hermit's Peak Fire) ignited on April 6, 2022, and the Gallinas Canyon prescribed burn (later the Calf Canyon Fire) re-ignited from a January 2022 burn pile and was discovered on April 19, 2022. The two fires merged into a combined fire that devastated villages, ranches, and watersheds in San Miguel, Mora, and surrounding counties.

The federal Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act (Public Law 117-180, signed September 2022) established a federal compensation framework for victims of the fire. The Act recognized federal responsibility for the fire and provided for compensation through FEMA-administered claims processes outside the standard Federal Tort Claims Act framework that would otherwise govern claims against the U.S. Forest Service.

The Act provides compensation for property damage, business losses, financial losses, loss of income, and certain other categories of harm. The compensation framework is more accessible than the standard FTCA framework, recognizing the federal government's responsibility and avoiding lengthy litigation through agency-administered claims processes. Additional appropriations have extended funding for the program through subsequent congressional action.

FEMA established a Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Claims Office to administer compensation claims under the Act. Claims procedures include documentation requirements (proof of property ownership, business records, income documentation), evaluation processes for valuing losses, and appeal mechanisms for denied or under-compensated claims. The administrative process operates as the primary recovery vehicle for fire victims, with court-based litigation reserved for specific categories not covered by the administrative framework or for review of administrative decisions.

Claim deadlines apply: claims must be filed within statutory periods that vary by loss category. Practitioners representing fire victims should track filing deadlines carefully and coordinate documentation across multiple categories of loss (property, business, financial, etc.) to maximize recovery within the administrative framework. The Claims Office has issued regulations and guidance documents that affect evaluation standards and recovery scope.

The federal compensation framework is distinct from New Mexico's state tort framework. Claims arising from the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire proceed under the federal Act rather than under state-law negligence or inverse condemnation theories. The federal preemption avoids the typical wildfire litigation framework that applies to investor-owned utility fires in California (inverse condemnation), Oregon (negligence), or other states where state law governs.

For practitioners with wildfire practice experience in California, Oregon, or other state-law jurisdictions, the Hermit's Peak federal framework requires distinct understanding of administrative claim procedures, FEMA evaluation standards, and the federal-claim-administrative-review structure that differs substantially from state-court litigation. The framework also illustrates the kind of federal compensation regime that may emerge in future federal-government-caused wildfire matters where direct FTCA litigation would be prohibitively complex.