1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Op in ion N um be r:

____ ____ ____ __ 3 F ili ng D at e: M ay 1 9, 201 6 4 ESTA TE OF AL ICE C . B RIC E, by and 5 thro ug h Pers on al Repres enta tiv e TRACY A., 6 and M inors, E MILYA. , and HA NN AH A. , b y 7 and th rough th eir pare nt and next f riend , 8 TRACY A., 9 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 10 v. N O. S -1 -S C -3 4873 11 12 TOYO TA MOTO R CORPORATIO N, 13 a Japanese corporation; TOY OTAMOT OR 14 SA LES, U. S. A. , IN C. , a C alifornia corporation; 15 TOYO TA MOTO R ENGI NEERI NG & MANUFACTURING 16 NOR TH A MERICA , IN C. , a Ke ntu ck y corporation; 17 TO Y OT A M OT OR

N OR TH A M ERIC A , IN C . , a C ali fo rn ia 18 co rpo ra tio n; TO YOTA MOT OR MANUFACTURING, 19 CA LIFO RN IA, INC ., a California corp oration; TOY OTA 20 TEC HNIC AL CEN TER U. S. A. , a Japanese c orporation; 21 TOY OTATEC HNIC AL CEN TER JAP AN , a Japanese c orporation; 22 LA R R

Y H. M IL LE R

C OR P OR

A TI ON N EWM EX IC O, d /b /a 23 AMERICAN TO YOTA; NEW MEXICO STATE HI GHW AY 24 D E PA R T M E N T ; a n d DO E S 1 t h r o u g h 1 0 , i n c l u s i v e , a n d e a c h o f t h e m, 25 Defen da nt s- App el le es .

26 CER TIFIC ATION FR OM T HE N EW ME XIC O C OUR T OF AP PE ALS 27 Sa ra h M . S in gle to n, D ist ri ctJu dg e1 Tucker

Law F irm , P .C. 2 Steven L ee T ucker 3 San ta Fe, NM 4 Curtis & L ucero 5 L isa K

. Curt is 6 Am alia J. Skogen Lucero 7 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 8 The K om

y atte L awFirm 9 Pa ul K om y atte 10 Golden, C O 11 fo r Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant

12 Ro de y , Dick as on , Slo an , Aki n & Ro bb , P.A. 13 Edw ard R. Ricco 14 Je ff re y M. Cr oa sde ll 15 Todd E. Rinner 16 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 17 for D efendants-Appellees1 OPIN ION

2 MA ES, Justice. 3 { 1} Inthi s c er

tif ie d ap peal w e co nsi de r w he the r the doc tr ine of f ra udul en t 4 co nc ea lm en t appl ie s to act ion s un de r the Wro ngf ul D eath A ct

( W D A ), N MS A 197 8, 5 Se ct ion s 41 -2 -1 to - 4 ( 1882 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2001 ). T his is aniss ue of f ir st 6 im pression in Ne w Me xico. W e hold that the doctrine of fra udul ent concealm ent m ay 7 ap ply to tol l the statut or

y li m itatio ns p er iod fo r a w ro ngf ul d eath c la im

if ade fe ndant 8 ha s f ra udul en tly c onc ea le d a ca

use of ac tio n, the re by pr ev en tin g that de fe ndant f ro m 9 cl ai m ing the statut e of lim itatio ns as a def en se unt il the pla int if

f le ar ne d or , thr ough 10 reas on ab le di li ge nc e, co ul d h av e le arn edof t he cau se of a ct io n. Acc or di ng ly w e 11 re ve rs e an d r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt 12 I. Back ground 13 { 2} A lic e Br ic e (D ec ed en t) die d in an au tom obi le ac ci de nt o n S ep te m be r 13, 200 6, 14 w he n he r 2002 T oy ota Cam ry sud de nly

a cc el er at ed

int o ahig hw ay

in te rs ec tio n, 15 collided with a tractor- trailer, and burst int o flam es. The E stat e of A lice C. Brice 16 (P la int if

f) f ile d aw ro ngf

ul d eat h law sui t onA ugus t 31 , 201 0, a sse rt ing pr oduc ts 17 liabilityand various oth er claim s against the car m anufacturer , the dea ler, and others 18 (D ef en da nts ) .2

1 { 3} Be ca

use thi s w ro ngf

ul d eath a ct ionw as f

ile d th re e y ears a nd e le ve n m onths 2 fr om the da te of D ec ed en t’ s dea th, D ef en da nts m ove d f

or j udgm en t onthe ple ad ing s 3 in d istri ct co urt pur suant to Ru le 1- 012( C) N MR A

. D ef en da nts ar gue d th at

und er the 4 thr ee -y ear sta tut e of

li m it at io ns pe ri od i n th e W D A , ( 1) aw ro ngf ul d eath c au se of 5 ac tio n a cc ru es “ as of

the da te of

de ath, ” § 41 -2 -2 (1 961) , (2 ) thi s prov isi on is stri ct ly 6 co nstru ed , an d (3) thi s prov isi on doe s not all ow fo r tol lin g. P la int if f ar gue d th at

the 7 sta tut e of

li m itatio ns p er iod

w as e qui tabl y to lled by D ef en da nt’ s f

ra udul en t 8 co nc ea lm en t. P la int if

f al le ge s th at

D ef en da nts pr ev en ted Pl ai ntiff f ro m obt ai nin g 9 knowle d g e abo ut the cause of action, that D efendants we re aware of the sudden 10 ac ce le ratio n pr obl em

in its ve hic le s f

or m ost of the de ca de pr ec ed ing 2010 a nd w el l 11 be fo re D ec ed en t’ s 20 06 ac ci de nt, an d tha t D ef en da nts f ra udul en tly c onc ea le d th es e 1 2 pr o b l e m s u n t i l F e b r

u a ry 2 0 1 0 w h e n t h e s u d d e n a c c e l e r a t i o n p r o b l e m s d r e wp ub lic 13 atte nti on and l ed

to co ngr es sio na l heari ngs. Pl ai nti ff co nte nds tha t i t ha d no w ay to 14 dis co ve r its w ro ngfu l de at h c au se of a ct ionbe fo re F eb ru ar

y 201 0. P la int if

f as se rt s 15 tha t a ft er

dis co ve ri ng its cause of ac tio n, it pr om ptl y fi le d its wr ongf

ul d eath s uit

on 16 Aug us t 3 1, 2 01 0. 17 { 4} T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d D ef en da nts ’ m oti on f

or j udgm en t on the ple ad ing s. 18 Pl ai nti ff

appea le d th e unf

av or ab le sum

m ar y j udgm en t t o th e Co urt of Appe al s,3

1 cl ai m ing that the W D A li m itatio ns p er iod m ay be e qui ta

bly tol le d on th e ba sis of 2 fraudulent concealmen t

. The C ourt of Appeals cer tified the appeal to this Court 3 unde r N MS A 1978 , S ec tio n 34 -5 -1 4( C) ( 2) ( 1972 ) an d R ule 12- 606 N MR

A statin g 4 tha t r es olu tio n of

thi s a ppe al inv olv es sig nif

ic an t i ssu es of law an d po lic y that are of 5 s ub s t an t i al p ub l i c i n t er es tt h at s h o u l db e d et er m i n ed b y t h e N ew Me x i co Su p r e me 6 Co ur t. We accep te d c ert ifi cat io n. 7 S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w 8 { 5} Whether the doctrine of fr audulent con cealm ent m ay serve to toll the statuto ry 9 lim itations period for a cause o f action under the W DApresents an issue of statuto ry 10 in te rp ret at io n, whi ch we rev ie w de n ov o. Se e G las er v . L eB us , 20 12 -NMSC -0 12 , ¶ 11 8, 276 P.3d 959. “ When this Cou rt con s t ru es statutes, our guidin g principle is th at 12 w e shou ld d et er

m ine an d e ff

ec tua te the L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt whe n it

e na ct ed the 13 statute.” State ex rel. Brandenbur g v. Sanchez , 2014 -N MS C- 022, ¶ 4, 329 P. 3d 6 54. 14 “ In discerning the Legislature’ s intent, we are aided by classic canons of statutory 15 co nstru ct ion , a nd [ w ] e loo k f ir st t o th e pla in l an gua ge of the statut e, giv ing the w or ds 16 th ei r or di na ry

m ean in g, u nl es s t he L eg isl at ur e ind ic at es a di ffer en t o ne was i nt en de d.” 17 D el fin o v . G rif

fo , 2011 -N MS C- 015, ¶ 12, 150 N

. M. 97, 257 P

. 3d 9 17 ( al te ratio n in 18 or igi nal) ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ W e ha ve r ep eate dly4

1 ca uti one d th at

de spi te the ‘ be gui lin g si m pli ci ty ’ of pars ing the w or ds o n the fa ce of 2 a sta tut e, w e m

ust ta ke care to av oid

a dopt ionof

ac onstru ct ionthat w oul d r en de r the 3 st atut e’s ap pl ic at io n abs ur d o r un reas on ab le or l ead to in jus ti ce o r co nt rad ic ti on .” 4 Sta te v. Strauc h, 201 5- N MS C- 009, ¶ 13, 345 P

. 3d 3 17. T he re fo re , w he n th e 5 L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt is not cl ear fr om the pla in langua ge of a sta tut e, “ w e co nsi de r the 6 sta tut e’ s hi sto ry

a nd b ac kgr ound in so far as it m ay he lp t o gi ve e ff

ec t t o th e 7 Le gislature’ s intent.” Tr uong v . A lls tat e In s. Co

. , 2010-NMS C-009, ¶ 33, 147 N. M. 8 583, 227 P.3d 73 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). I ndeed, “ [s] tatutes 9 sho ul d be c onstru ed

so a s to f

ac ili ta te the ir

ope ratio n and the a ch ie ve m en t of the 10 g o als as specified by the legislature.” R ob e rt s v . S w . C m t y . H e al th Se rv ices , 11 1992 -N MS C- 042, ¶

12, 114 N

. M. 248 , 837 P

. 2d 4 42. 12 II. D isc us sio n 13 { 6} Plaintiff ar gues that the do ctrine of f raud u l ent concealm ent is deeply rooted 14 in the co m

m on law an d pr ovi de s equit ab le gr ound s f or tol lin g th e lim itatio ns p er iod 15 in th e WD A . D ef

en da nts a rg ue that the li m it at io ns pe ri od i n th e W D A m ust be 16 “ str ic tly ” ap pli ed

a nd tha t it is fo r the L eg isl at ur e to de ci de if fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t 1 7 ap pli e s t o t o l l t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d o f t h e W D A

. T o r e s o l v e t h i s i s s u e o f fi rs t 18 im pression, we discuss th e com m on-law doctrine of fraudulent concealm ent and then5

1 ex am in e w he the r the L eg isl at ur e int en de d f

ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t t o a ppl y to the 2 lim itatio ns p er iod

in the W D A

. F ina lly , w e co nsi de r D ef en da nts ’ rel ianc e on a 3 nu m be r of ol de r, in ap po si te cas es , bo th fro m th is Co ur t an d t he Co ur t o f App eal s. 4 A. Fr audulen t C oncealm ent at Com m on Law and in Ne w Mexico 5 { 7} T he c om

m on law ha s lo ng r ec ogni ze d th at ape rs on w ho c om

m its f ra ud s houl d 6 no t b e p erm it te d t o b en efi t fr om th atco nd uc t. Se e, e . g. , Talbot v. Jansen , 3 U .S . ( 3 7 D al l. ) 133, 158 (1 795) (“ [P ] er sons gui lty of fr au d, shou ld not g ai n by it

. H en ce the 8 effic acy

of the legal principle, that no m an shall set up his own fraud or i niqu ity , a s 9 a ground of action or defence. ”). Pub lic policy further supports thi s legal principle. 10 To decide the case we need look no further than the m axim that no m an 11 m ay

take a dvanta ge of

his ow n w ro ng. D ee ply ro ot ed in our 12 j ur isp ru de nc e thi s pr inc ipl e ha s be enappl ie d inm an y div er se c la sse s of 13 cases by

both law and equity courts and has frequently been em ploy ed 14 to b ar

ine qui ta ble r el ianc e on s ta tut es of li m itatio ns. 15 G lus v . B rook

ly n E

. D ist

. T

erm ina l , 35 9 U.S. 2 31 , 23 2- 33 (19 59 ). 16 { 8} It is a w ell settled in bot h “ general com m on law, ” and “ federa l law[ ] that 17 fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t of ac au se of ac tio n by the de fe ndant w ill tol l the sta tut e of 18 lim itations .” Prather v. Neva Paperba cks, Inc. , 446 F

. 2d 3 38, 340 -4 1 ( 5thCi r. 197 1) 19 (c itatio ns and f

ootnot e om itt ed ); se e, e . g. , Bailey v. Glover , 88 U.S. 3 42, 3 47- 50 20 (1 874) ( tol lin g th e sta tu te of li m itatio ns p er iod be ca use the de fe ndant’ s f

ra udul en t6

1 co nc ea lm en t of

a sse ts d ur ing bankr

upt cy pr oc ee din gs p re ve nte d the pla int if f fr om 2 dis co ve ri ng the injury

inc ur re d by that c onc ea lm en t) ; H

olm be rg v . A rm bre ch t , 327 3 U

. S. 392 , 397 ( 1946 ) (c onc lud ing that the e qui ta ble doc tr ine of

f raudule nt 4 concealm ent “ is read into every feder al statute of lim itation”). 5 { 9} In 18 76 , be f

or e t he e na c t m e nt of t he W D A, the Ne w Me xico Te rritorial 6 Le gislature adopted “ the com m on law as r ecognized in the United States of Am erica ” 7 as the lawof

N ewMe xico. NMS A 197 8, § 38 -1 -3 ( 1876 ); see Lopez v. Maez , 8 1982 -N MSC- 103, ¶ 6, 98 N. M. 625, 651 P. 2d 12 69. N ot o n l y has NewMexico 9 ad opt ed

the c om m on l aw , to the e xte nt i t i s a ppl ic ab le to ou r “ co ndi tio n and 10 circum stances,” Jo hnso n v . A m stu tz , 1984 -N MS C- 030, ¶ 3, 101 N

. M. 94, 678 P

. 2d 11 1169 , the N ewMe xic o c ourts l ik ew ise ge ne ra lly a dhe re to the pr opos iti on tha t on e 12 shou ld n ot b e al low ed to ta ke a dvanta ge of

one ’ s own w ro ng, s ee , e. g ., S auter v. 13 Sai nt M

ic hael’s Co lle

ge , 19 62 -NMSC -1 07 , ¶ 24 , 70 N.M. 38 0, 3 74 P.2d 13 4 (“ To 14 pe rm it the de fe ndant t o invoke the doc tr ine of es top pe l aga ins t a situa tio n cr eate d by 15 his ow n f

ra ud w oul d c er

ta inl y not be in ke ep ing w ith the pr inc ipl es of e qui ty a nd i t 16 is a fu nd am en ta l p rin ci pl e o f eq ui ty tha t n o o ne can tak e ad va nt ag e o f hi s o wn 17 wr ong.”). 18 { 10} Co nsi ste nt w iththo se vie w s, N ewMe xic o courts hav e ap pli ed the doc tr ine of7

1 frau du le nt co nc eal m en t. Se e, e . g. , Kern ex re l. K ern v. St. Jose

p h Hosp., Inc. , 2 1985 -N MS C- 031, ¶¶ 10 -1 1, 102 N

. M. 452 , 697 P

. 2d 1 35 ( dis cu ssi ng f ra udul en t 3 co nc ea lm en t i n the co nte xt of m ed ic al m al pr ac tic e)

. I n N ewMe xic o, the doc tr ine of 4 fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t is distin ct f ro m but is none the le ss g ro unde d “ uponthe 5 pr inc ipl e of equit ab le es top pe l. T he the or y is pr em ise d on the not ion tha t the one w ho 6 ha s pr ev ente d th e pla int if f fr om br ing ing sui t w ith in the statut or y pe ri od s houl d be 7 estopped from

asserting the statute of l i m i t at i ons as a defense. ” Id

. ¶ 10 ( ci ta tio ns 8 om itt ed ). Apla int if

f al le gin g f

ra udul en t conc ea lm en t c ar

ri es the bur de n to e sta

bli sh 9 al l fa ct s ne ce ssary to pr ove it

. Se e id

. ¶ 12. T o to ll a sta tut or y li m itatio ns p er iod 10 unde r the doc tr ine of

f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t, the pla int if f m ust pr ove that ( 1) the 11 defendant knew of the a lleged wrongful act and conceale d it from the plaintiff or had 12 m at er ia l i nf

orm at ionpe rt ine nt t o it s disc ove ry w hic h he fa ile d to dis cl ose , a nd ( 2) the 13 pla int if

f did not kno w , or c oul d no t have kno w n th ro ugh the e xe rc ise of r ea sona ble 14 di li ge nc e, of

th e cau se of act io n with in th e st atut ory pe rio d. Id

. ; se e als o T

om lin son 15 v. G eo rge , 2005-NMS C-020, ¶¶ 13, 15, 138 N. M. 34, 116 P.3d 105 (conclud ing th at 16 fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t di d no t pr ec lud e the de fe ndant f ro m a sse rt ing the li m itatio ns 17 pe ri od a s a def

en se be ca use the de fe ndant did not pre ve nt the pla int if f fr om fi lin g su it 18 w ithin the st at

uto ry pe ri od)

. I f the pla int if f m ee ts the bur de n of

pr oof a nd the8

1 doc tr ine tol ls the statut or y li m itatio ns p er iod , “ the statut e co m m ences to r

un a ga in 2 w he n th e [p la int if

f] dis co ve rs , or

thr oughthe e xe rc ise of

r ea sona ble dil ige nc e shou ld 3 have discovered, the [c ause of action] .” To m lin son , 20 05 -NMSC -0 20 , ¶ 13

. 4 { 11} D ef

en da nts r el y

on a num be r of N ewMex ic o c as es a ddr es sin g st at ute s of 5 lim itatio ns. B ut i n so doi ng, Defe nd an ts m isp er ce ive the na tur e of f ra udul en t 6 co nc ea lm ent and its dis tin ct pla ce in our

j ur isp ru de nc e. T he doc tr ine of f ra udul en t 7 co nc ea lm en t, aty

pe of e qui ta ble t oll ing , is dis tin ct

f ro m the doc tr ine of

e qui ta ble 8 es to pp el . The t wo d oc tri ne s, wh il e rel at ed , app ly in d iff eren t ci rcu m st an ces . 9 E qui ta

ble tol lin g pe rm its apla int if f to av oid the bar of

the statut e of 10 lim itatio ns i f de spi te the e xe rc ise of a ll due dilige nc e he is una ble to 11 obtain v i t al inform ation bearing on the existence of his claim

. In 12 co ntr as t, th e do ctri ne of e qui ta ble e sto ppe l c om es int o pl ay if the 13 defendant takes active steps to prevent the plaintiff from suing in tim e, 14 as by

pr om isi ng n ot t o pl ea d th e sta tut e of li m itatio ns. 15 Sh ropshe ar v . Co rp. Co unse l of the Ci tyof Ch ic ago , 27 5 F

. 3d 59 3, 59 5 ( 7th Cir. 16 2001 ). 17 { 12} Pu t an ot he r way , 18 T he dif

fe rence be tw ee n [ equit ab le ] e sto ppe l and f ra udul en t 19 co nc ea lm en t, a s ge ne ra lly a rt ic ula te d, is thi s: f

ra udule nt c onc ea lm en t 20 ap pli es w he n th e plai nt iff la ck s a ct ua l or c onstru ct ive not ic e of

his or 21 he r cl ai m , wh il e eq ui tabl e es to pp el ap pl ie s whe n a p la in ti ff wh o k no ws 22 of

his c au se of

a ct ionr ea sona

bly r el ie s onthe de fe ndant’ s st at em en t or 23 co nduc t i n f

ai lin g to br ing sui t.16 W e re co gni ze that so m e co urts h av e use d th e te rm fr au dul en t co nc ea lm en t t o 1 1 7 d es cr i b e b o t h t h e t o l l i n g o f a l i m i t a t i o n s o r r ep o s e p er i o d“ b as ed o n a d ef en d an t ’s 18 m isc ondu ct ” an d to de sc ri be the ty pe of e st oppe l tha t a

ppl ie s to “ de lib er at e or 19 oth er w ise blam ew orthy

c ondu ct by the de fe ndant tha t ca

use s th e pla int if

f to m iss the 20 statu t o ry deadline.” Shr opsh ea r , 275 F. 3d at 595 -97. B ut giv en that the latter 21 invo lves concealm ent of noth ing other than the defendant’ s “ bad intent,” id. a t 59 7, 22 w e be lie ve the re w ill be le ss c onf usi on i f w e lim it th e us e of the te rm f ra udul en t 23 co nc eal m en t i n t he st atut e o f li m it at io ns co nt ex t t o e qu it ab le to ll in g. 9 1 To wn e v. R obbi ns , 339 F

. Su pp . 2 d 11 05, 1 117 (D

. O r. 200 4) ( int er na l qu ota tio n 2 m arks and citations om itted). 1 3 { 13} E qui ta

ble es top pe l an d equit ab le tol lin g thus b othse rv e to t oll the li m itatio ns 4 period for the duration of a defendant’ s fraud or a plaintiff's r eliance, as applicable, 5 bu t t he se do ct rin es d o n o t affe ctth e d at e o n wh ic h a cau se of a ct io n a ccru es . See 6 ge ne ral lyKe rn , 1985-NMS C-031, ¶ 12 (explainin g the burden of p roof to be carr ied 7 by a p laintiff s eeking to to ll the statuto ry lim itation p eriod). In contrast, a discovery 8 r u l e a c tu a l l y s e rv e s t o s e tt h e d a t e o n w h i c h ac au s e o f a c t i o n a c c r

u e s t o ( a s t h e n a me 9 sugg ests) the date on which the cause of action wa s discov ered or should have been 10 di sc ov ered wit h t he ex erci se of d il ig en ce. Maestas v. Zager , 200 7- N MS C- 003, ¶ 1, 11 141 N

. M. 154 , 152 P

. 3d 1 41. 12 { 14} Whil e w e ha ve not ha d th e oppo rt uni ty to pr ovi de the c ontra sti ng d ef ini tio ns 13 of the se te rm s be fo re now , the N ewMe xi co co urts h av e co nsi ste ntl y tr eate d th e10

1 dif fere nt d oc tr ine s a s di sti nc t. I n Ke rn , am ed ic al m al pr ac tic e ca se w he re the 2 de fe ndant c onc ea le d th e ca use of the pla int if

f’ s in j ur y , w e he ld tha t the doc tr ine of 3 fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t m ay se rv e to t oll the li m itatio ns p er iod

. 198 5- N MS C- 031, 4 ¶¶ 13- 14; se e als o T

om lin son , 200 5- N MS C- 020, ¶¶ 1 5 ( hol din g th at w he re the 5 pla int if f le ar ne d of the de fe ndant’ s c onc ea lm en t of the c au se of

the inj ur y be fo re the 6 lim itatio ns p er iod

ha d e nde d th e doc tr ine of f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t did no t t oll the 7 sta tut or

y ti m e)

. A nd i n Pe rry v. Staver , 197 0- N MC A -0 96, ¶ 11, 81 N

. M. 76 6, 473 8 P. 2d 3 80, w he re the pla int if f al le ge d th at the de fe ndant h ad ind ic at ed that he w oul d 9 not rely

on a statute of lim itations defense and t h e plaintiff had relied on that 1 0 as s er t i o n , t h e C o u r to f A p p ea l s co n s i d er ed(a n du l t i m at el y re je ct ed ) t h e p l ai n t i ff

’s 11 argum ent that equitable estop pel shou ld toll the lim itations period. In that case, ther e 12 was no m en ti on of t he do ct rin e o f frau du le nt co nc eal m en t. Se e id. 13 { 15} W e have likewise distin guish ed fraudulent concealm ent from a discovery rule. 14 In Cl ark v. Lo vel ac e Hea lt h S ys te ms , In c., 200 4- N MC A -1 19, ¶ ¶ 9, 20, 136 N

. M. 411 , 15 99 P

. 3d 2 32, the pla int if fs a rg ue d th at

the da te of

a cc ru al of

the ir w ro ngf ul d eath 16 action was the date upo n wh i ch t h ey learned of, or should have with due diligence 17 le arn ed of

, the inj ur y a nd i ts c au se , but

the Co urt of

Appe al s de cl ine d to appl y the 18 di sc ov ery ru le to th e wro ng fu l d eat h a ct

. Se e Ke rn , 198 5-NMSC- 031, ¶ 1116 In To m lin son , w e re fe rr ed to thi s ty pe of f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t a s atol lin g 2 17 m ech an is m

an d a type o f es to pp el

. See 2005 -N MSC- 020, ¶¶ 13-14. W e now clarify 18 th atfrau du le nt to ll in g i s a t y pe of e qu it ab le to ll in g.

11 1 (s pe ci fy ing und er

the dis co ve ry ru le tha t the statut e be gin s to “ run ag ai n” w he n th e 2 pla int if f dis co ve rs , or

thr oughthe e xe rc ise of

due dil ige nc e shou ld h av e dis co ve re d, 3 the m al pr ac tic e)

. I n To m lin son , am al pr ac tic e ca se , the de fe ndant c onc ea le d hi s 4 m isc ondu ct , but

the pla int if

f dis co ve re d the ca

use of ac tio n j ust fo ur m onths int o th e 5 thr ee -y ear lim itatio ns p er iod , a nd the doc tr ine of f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t di d not sa ve 6 th e u n t i m e l y a c t i o n b r o u g h t a f t e r t h e t h r e e - y e a r l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d h ade nde d. 7 To m lin son , 200 5- N MS C- 020, ¶ 12. T he P la int if

f ar gue d th at

adis co ve ry

r ule sho uld 8 ap ply , so tha t he r ca

use of ac tio n wou ld not ac cr ue unt il the da te she dis co ve re d th e 9 cau se , bu t we d is ag reed

. To m lin son , 200 5- N MS C- 020, ¶ ¶ 12- 14. 2 10 { 16} Lim itations periods are intended to encourage plaintiffs to dilig ently pursue a 11 cl ai m onc e aninj ur

y ha s be en di sc ov ered. T he doc tr ine of f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t 12 pr ope rl y

ba lanc es the pr inc ipl e of sto ppi ng de fen da nts f

ro m be ne fi tti ng f

ro m 13 fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t tha t pr ev en ts pla int if fs f ro m f ili ng c la im s, w hil e co nti nui ng 14 to req ui re p la in ti ffs to ex erci se ord in ary di li ge nc e in pu rs ui t o f a cau se of a ct io n. See 15 To m lin son , 200 5- N MS C- 020, ¶ 26. I n To m lin son , w e ex pla ine d th at “ anund uly12

1 long ” lim itations period, or one that re lied upo n a discovery based accr

ual date, 2 “ would place a n unfair burden on th e m edical profession.” 2005-NMS C-020, ¶ 8 3 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). W e observed that the NewMexico 4 L eg isl at

ur e ha d c ar ef

ull y ba la nced

the ne ed f or c iti ze ns t o have a n op portun ity to 5 bring a tim ely m alpractice case where appropriate with t he need to prevent insurance 6 carr ie rs fro m

wit hd rawi ng m ed ic al m al pr act ic e li ab il it y co ve rag e in New Me x ic o. 7 Id

. 8 { 17} In balancing these com peting con cerns, we concluded th at the Le gislature 9 int en de d to c re at e ane xc ep tio n to the t hr ee-ye ar li m itatio ns p er iod

in the c as e of 10 fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t, but did not int en d to subj ec t “ ‘ he al th c ar e pr ovi de rs [ to] the 11 m uch greater liabilityexposure that wo u l d flow f rom a discovery -based acc rual 12 date.’ ” Id

. ( quot ing Roberts v. Sw. C mty. He alth Services , 1992-NMS C-042, ¶ 14). 13 Fi na lly , a fter qu al if y ing the r ole of

dis co ve ry

r ule s inc as es of

f ra udul en t 14 co nc ea lm en t, w e co nc lud ed that the doc tr ine of f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t a

ppl ie s to 15 cl ai m s br ough t unde r the Me dic al Ma lpr ac tic e A ct but tha t the dis co ve ry ru le did not 16 ap pl y in th atcas e. To m lin son , 200 5- N MS C- 020, ¶ 26. 17 B. Wrongful D eath A ct 18 { 18} Wrongful death actions we re not perm itted at com m on law based on the belief13

1 tha t the ri ght of re co ve ry die d wi th the inj ur ed pa rty an d on the the or y tha t a pe rs on 2 ha rm edby an ot he r’s de at h had no rig ht to reco ve r. Se e, e . g. , B ak er v . B olt on ( 1808 ) 3 170 E ng. Re p. 103 3 ( “ Inac iv il Co ur t, the de ath of ahum anbe ing c oul d no t be 4 com plained of as an i n

ju ry, and in th is case the dam ages, a s to the plaint iff’ s wife , 5 m ust sto p w iththe pe r[ i] od o f he r ex ist en ce . ”) ; see als o W ex S. Mal on e, Th e G en es is 6 of W rong ful D ea th , 17 S tan. L

. Re v. 104 3, 1044 (1 965)

. S ch olars a ttr ibu te the r ise 7 of w ro ngf ul d eath a ct ion s inthe nin et ee nthc en tur y to a shi ft f ro m unn at ur al de aths 8 caused by

person-to-person vio lence, to “ a virtually new phenom enon—acci d en tal 9 death throug h corporate enterpr ise.” I d. at 1043 (“ Tr agedy

as a r esult of indi ffer ence 10 an d ne gle ct

w as sud de nly

upo n us in the f

ac tor y , on the c ity

str ee ts, a nd o n th e ra ils

. 11 Nor w as the .

. . v i l l ain of the piece any longer the im

pecuniou s felon. I n his pl ace 12 st oo d t he pr os pe rin g co rp or at io n wit h ab un da nt as se ts to m eet th e n eed s o f wid ows 13 an d or phans. ”)

. As a re sul t of the se de ve lop m en ts, the r at ion al e be hin d pr ohi bit ing 14 ca use s of a ct ion s inw ro ngfu l de at h ca se s w as no l onge r pe rs ua siv e, a nd w ro ngf ul 1 5 d e a t h s t a tu t e s b e c a me w i d e s p r e a da c r o s s t h e c o u n t ry . T h e U n i t e dS t a t e s S up r e me 16 Co urt ob se rv ed

a lm ost ha lf ac en tur y a go tha t 17 [t] hese num erous an d b ro adly applicable statutes, taken as a whole, 1 8 m ak e it c l e a r

t h a tt h e r e i s n o p r e s e n tp ub l i c p o l i c y a g a i n s ta l l o w i ng 19 re co ve ry

f or w ro ngf ul d eath. T he statut es e vid en ce a w ide re j ec tio n by14

1 the legislatures of whatever j ustifications m ay o n ce have existed for a 2 ge ne ra l r ef

usa l t o a llo wsuc h r ec ove ry . Thi s le gisla tiv e es ta bli shm en t 3 of

pol ic y c ar ri es sig nif ic an ce be y ond the part ic ular sc ope of e ac h of the 4 statutes invo lved. The poli cy thus established has becom e it self a par t 5 of

our law , to be giv enit s appr opr ia te w ei ght not onl y in m atte rs of 6 st atut or y

co ns tru ct io n b ut als o i n t ho se of d eci si on al law. 7 Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. , 39 8 U.S. 3 75 , 39 0- 91 (19 70 ). 8 1. The p la in la ng ua ge , his to ry , and purpo se of Ne w Mex ic o’ s W DA 9 { 19} New Mex ic o a do pt edit s Wron gf ul Deat h Act (W DA) in 18 82

. See 1882 N. M. 10 L aw s c h. 61, § 2

. In New Mexi co , a ct ion s f or w ro ngf ul d eath are c ontro lle d by 11 Sect io ns 41 -2 -1 to -4. Se ct io n 4 1- 2- 1 p ro vi de s, 12 Whe ne ve r the de ath of ape rs on s ha ll be c ause d by the w ro ngf

ul a ct , 13 neglect or d efault o f another, althoug h such death sh all have been 14 ca

use d un de r suc h c ir cu m stanc es a s a m ount in lawto a fe lon y , a nd the 15 ac t, or

ne gle ct , or de fau lt , i s sucha s w oul d, if de ath ha d no t e nsue d, 16 have entitled the party injure d t o m aintain an action and recover 17 da m ag es in re spect th er eo f, the n, a nd i n e ve ry suc h c as e, the pe rs on 18 w ho, or the co rp or at ion w hic h, w oul d have be enli ab le , if de ath ha d no t 19 en sue d, shal l be lia ble to ana ct ionf

or da m ag es , notw ith standi ng the 20 de ath of

the pe rs on i nj ur ed

. 21 { 20} Consist ent with the enactm ent of sim i l ar s t at u t es ac ro s s t h e n at i o n, Ne w 22 Me xic o’ s W D A w as inten de d to r ep la ce the c om m on- lawr

ule barr ing r ec ove ry

in 23 ca se s of

w ro ngf ul d eath s o a s to a llo wr ec ove ry a nd t o di sc oura ge an d punish 24 ne gli ge nt b eh av ior

by c or por at ion s. This C ourt ha s art ic ula te d atw o- fo ld p ur pose15

1 be hin d th e W D A : ( 1) “ to c om pe nsa te the statut or

y b e n ef ic iari es a nd t o de te r ne gli ge nt 2 conduct” (R om er o v . B ye rs , 1994-NMS C-03 1, ¶ 17, 117 N. M. 422, 872 P. 2d 84 0), 3 an d (2 ) t o “ p r o m o t e s a f e t y o f l i f e a n dl i m b b y m a k i n g n e g l i g e n c e t h a tc au s e s d e at h 4 costly to the wr ongd oer. ” Sta ng v . H er tz , 197 0- N MS C- 048, ¶ 9, 81 N

. M. 348 , 467 5 P.2d 14 ; see also Trujill o v. Prince , 1 9 3 8

- N M S C

- 0 2 4 , ¶ 1 7 , 4 2 N

. M

. 3 3 7 , 7 8 P

. 2d 6 145 (“ [T he W DA ] has to som e degree an objec tive of publi c punish m ent and was 7 de sig ne d inpart

a t l ea st t o a ct

a s adeter ren t to th e ne gli ge nt c ondu ct of oth er s and 8 thereby prom ote the publ ic safety and welf are. ”). 9 { 21} Se ct ion 41 -2 -2 of th e W DA p ro vi de s a sta tut or y pe ri od o f lim itatio n on 10 w ro ngf

ul d eath a ct ion s: “ E ve ry ac tio n insti tut ed by virtue of the pr ovi sio ns o f thi s and 11 the preceding section [41-2-1 NMSA1978 ] m ust be brough t within three y ears a fter 12 the c au se of

a ct iona cc ru es . T he c au se of a ct iona cc ru es a s of

the da te of de ath. ” T he 13 lim it at ions pr ovi sio n of the W D A ha s un de rg one m ult ipl e re vis ion s si nc e its 14 en ac tm en t i n 18 82. T he or igi na l 1882 ve rs ion inc lud ed a lim itatio n on ac tio ns fo r one 15 y ear: “ E ve ry ac tio n insti tut ed by virtue of the pr ovi sio ns of thi s ac t m ust be br ough t 16 w ith in o ne y ear af

te r the c au se of ac tio n shal l have ac cr ue d .

. . . ” 1882 N

. M. L aw s, 1 7 c h

. 6 1 , § 9

. T h e o r i g i n a l s t a tu t e w a s s i l e n t r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r t h e c au se of a ct ion 18 ac cr ue d w he n th e inj ury oc curr ed or upo n th e de ce de nt’ s de ath. I n 18 87 the16

1 L eg isl at

ur e re pe al ed

the li m itatio ns s ec tio n. 188 7 N

. M. L aw s, c h. 2, § 7. The n, in 2 1889 , the L eg isl at

ur e re ins ta te d th e or igi na l lim itatio ns se ct ion

. 188 9 L aw s, c h. 75, 3 § 4; se e als o G alleg os v . A tc his on, T

. & S. F

. R y. Co

. , 1923-NMS C-032, ¶¶ 6-8, 28 N .M. 4 472, 21 4 P. 57 9 (e xpl ai nin g th at “ the r ep ea l of

[ the ] r ep ea lin g a ct ” re viv ed the 5 or ig in al on e-year li m it at io ns pe rio d i n t he W DA). 6 { 22} Si nc e 1 88 9 , t h e Leg is la tu re h as am en de d t he li m it at io n p eri od of t he W DA 7 tw ic e in r es pons e to j udi ci al de ci sio ns. I n Na tse wa y v. J ojo la , thi s C ourt he ld tha t the 8 be ne fi ci ar ie s ’ c a

use of a ct iona cc ru ed

und er the W D A w he n th e de ce de nt w as inj ur ed , 9 no t wh en th e d eced en t d ie d. See 1952 -N MS C- 104, ¶¶ 21, 26, 56 N. M. 793, 251 P. 2d 10 27 4, s u

p e r s e d e d b ys t atu te , 1961 N

. M. L aw s c h. 202 , § 1, a s r ec ogni ze d in Sta te 11 F arm M ut. A uto

. I

ns. Co

. v . L ue bbe rs , 200 5- N MC A -1 12, 138 N

. M. 289 , 119 P

. 3d 12 169. Th i s m eant that an action for w rongful death could be barre d by the one-y ear 13 lim itatio ns re str ic tio n in the W D A ev en be fo re the de ath ha d oc curr ed

. In 1 953, 14 fo llo w ing Na tse wa

y , the L egislature extend ed the lim itations period from one y ear 15 to thr ee y ears . 195 3 N

. M. L aw s, c h. 30, § 1; N MS A 195 3, § 22 -2 0- 2. I n Ki lk en ny 16 v. Kenney , w e aga in hel d that the ne w thr ee -y ear lim itatio ns p ro vis ionr anf ro m the 17 da te of i nju ry , rat he r th an th e da te of de at h. See 1961 -N MSC- 019, ¶¶ 6-14, 68 N. M. 18 26 6, 3 61 P.2d 14 9, supe rse de d bysta tut e , 1961 N

. M. L aw s, c h. 202 , § 1. F oll ow ing17

1 Ki lk en ny , the L eg isl at

ur e am en de d th e W D A in 196 1 to spec if y that a “ ca use of 2 ac tio n a cc ru es a s o f the da te of de ath, ” 1961 N

. M. L aw s, c h. 202 , § 1, pr ovi din g 3 pl ai nt iff

s t hr ee years fr om

th e d eced en t’s d eat h t o b rin g a n a ct io n u nd er t he W DA. 4 { 23} While the W DAsets forth a st atute of lim itations , it does not speak to whether 5 fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t a ppl ie s. T he re fo re , w e loo k to the c ont ex t i n w hic h th e w or ds 6 of the 196 1 e na ctm en t w er e w ri tte n to de te rm ine the le gis la tur e’ s in te nt. 7 2. When the appropriate show ing is m ade, fraudu lent concealm ent applies 8 to an ac tio n unde r the WDA 9 { 24} As it often does after establishin g a statutory

general principle, the legislature 10 ha s le ft

it to us to p ro vid e the nuanc es inv olv ed in the statut e’ s pr ac tic al appl ic at ion

. 11 See S tat e v. O lss on , 2 0 1 4

- N M S C

- 0 1 2 , ¶ ¶ 4 5

- 4 7 , ¶ 5 0 ( C h a v e z , J

. , d i s s en tin g) 12 (e xpl ai nin g ac ourt’ s r ole in re sol vin g a m big uous statut or

y langua ge ) , 3 2 4 P

. 3d 1 230. 13 As D efendants observe, the W DAis “ an expression of legisl ative policy .” 14 { 25} In 1889 , w he n the L eg isl at ive A sse m bly re ins ta te d the lim itatio ns p ro vis ion 15 in the W D A , it

w as on n oti ce that the c om m on -la wdoc tr ine of f ra udul en t 16 co nc eal m en t ex is te d as pa rt of th e co m m on la w o f New Mex ic o. See N MS A 197 8, 17 § 38-1-3 (187 6, am ended 191 5) (recognizing the com m on law as “ the rule of prac tice 18 an d de ci sio n” in N ewMe xic o c ourts)

. A nd the Leg is la tiv e A sse m bly did not18

1 ex pr es sl y ad dr es s ap pl ic ab il it y of t he do ct rin e. Se e Si ms v. S ims , 199 6- N MS C- 078, 2 ¶ 24, 122 N

. M. 618 , 930 P

. 2d 1 53 ( “ In rel y in g up on the c om m on l awto re sol ve 3 statutory

om issio ns and am

bigu ities, w e presum e the legislature w as we ll inform ed 4 ab out the e xis tin g c om

m on l awbe fo re the statut e w as e na ct ed a nd d id n ot i nte nd t o 5 enact a statute that conf l i ct ed with the com

m on law. ”); D oe v . Sta te e x re l. 6 Governor’s Organized Crime Prevent i on C om m’ n , 1992-NMS C-022, ¶ 12, 114 N. M. 7 78, 835 P

. 2d 7 6 (n oti ng tha t w e int er pr et a statut e “ as the [ L ] eg isl at ur e unde rs too d it 8 at the tim e it w as pa sse d” ). T he re fo re , as thi s Court expl ai ne d in Si ms , the c om m on 9 law rem ains in place t o fil l gaps not addressed expressly by a statute. 10 1996 -N MSC- 078, ¶ 23 (“ [T ] he com m on law, upon its ad o p t i on, cam e in and filled 11 ev er y c re vic e, noo k and c or

ne r in o ur j ur isp ru de nc e w he re it ha d not be en stay ed or 12 supp lante d by sta tut or y en ac tm en t, in so far as it w as ap pli ca ble to o ur c ondi tio ns and 13 ci rcu m st an ces .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 14 { 26} A cc or din gly , the co m m on- law doc tr ine of fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t r em ai ns i n 15 pla ce to fi ll the ga

p le ft by the pla in l an gua ge of the W D A , w hic h do es not e xpr es sly 16 ad dr es s t hi s i ss ue . Se e M orag ne , 398 U

. S. at 391 (1 970) (“ It ha s alw ay s be enthe duty 17 of the co m m on- law co urt to per ce ive the im pa ct of m aj or le gis la tiv e inno va tio ns and 18 to interwe ave the newlegislative pol icies with the inherited body of com m on law19

1 pr inc ipl es . ”)

. T his is co nsi ste nt w ithN ewMe xic o’ s pu bli c pol ic y

to dis co ur ag e 2 fr au d. A s w e not ed

in To m lin son , “ [f] raudulent c ondu ct has alwa ys p ro v i ded 3 equitable groun ds for relaxing a statutory tim e lim it.” 2005-NMS C-020, ¶ 9 (internal 4 quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 5 { 27} In ac co rd an ce w ith thi s publi c poli cy , N ew Me xic o courts have he ld tha t the 6 doctrine of fra

udul ent concealm ent applies to toll the lim itations period for other N ew 7 Me xic o st at

ute s, inc lud ing the Me dic al Ma lpr ac tic e A ct , N MS A 197 8, §§ 4 1- 5- 1 to 8 -2 9 (1 97 6, as am en de d t hr ou gh 20 15 ), se e, e . g. , Ke rn , 1985 -N MS C- 031, ¶ 10, a nd the 9 Tort Claim s Act, NMS A 1978, §§ 41-4-1 to -30 (197 6, as am ended throug h 201 5), 10 se e, e.g ., Armi

jo v. Reg en ts of Uni v. of

N.M. , 1984 -N MC A -1 18, ¶ 20, 103 N

. M. 183 , 11 70 4 P .2d 43 7, re v’ d on oth er gro unds , 1 9 8 5

- N M S C

- 0 5 7 , 1 0 3 N

. M

. 1 7 4 , 7 0 4 P

. 2d. 12 { 28} T he L eg isl at

ur e int en ds t o r equir e pla int if fs to ex er ci se or din ar

y dil ige nc e, not 13 extraordinary

clairvoy ance. Bec ause our role is to discern and effe ctuate the contours 1 4 of l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y , a n d t h e p o l i c y s up p o rt i n g t h e W D A w a s t o p r o v i d e l i t i g a n ts a 15 fa ir op portunity

to pr es en t the ir

c la im s inati m el y

f as hio n, w e co nc lud e tha t the 16 Le gislature m

ust have inten ded tha t the doctrine of fra udul ent concealm ent applies 17 to a W D A c as e w he re the appr opr ia te r equis ite s are m et

. 18 { 29} De fendants rem ind us that we shou ld not “ alter” legislative choices even where20

1 the y a re “ unj ust ” or

“ ab sur d. ” Bu t he re w e do not “ al te r” a le gis la tiv e cho ic e; to the 2 co ntr ar y , w e fo llo wone . A t or al a rg um en t, D ef en da nts c oul d art ic ula te no 3 ex plana tio n a s to w hy the L eg isl at

ur e w oul d no t have int en de d f ra udul en t 4 co nc ea lm en t t o a

ppl y to the W D A , a nd we can disce rnno r at ion al r ea son tha t the 5 L eg isl at

ur e w oul d no t have int en de d th e doc tr ine ’ s a ppl ic at ion

. 6 { 30} A dopt ing astr ic t c onstru ct ionof the W D A, as arg ue d by

D ef en da nts , w oul d 7 de fe at the r em ed ia l purp ose of

the a ct : 8 It

w oul d be am isf

ortun e if a na rr ow or

gr udgi ng p ro ce ss o f co nstru ct ion 9 we re to exem

plify and perpetuate th e v ery evils to be rem edied. T here 10 ar e tim es w he n un ce rt ai n w or ds are to be w ro ught int o c onsi ste nc y a nd 11 unitywith a le gislativ e p o l i cy which is itself a source of law , a new 1 2 g e n e r a t i v e i mp u l s e t r a n s mi t t e dt o t h e l e g a l s ys t e m. 13 V an B ee ck v . Sab ine T

ow ing Co

. , 300 U. S. 342, 350-51 (19 37) (footnote om itted). 14 It is c onsi ste nt w iththe pur pose of the W D A to tol l the statut or y li m itatio ns p er iod 1 5 w h e r e ad e f

e n d a n th a s f

r au du l e n t l y c o n c e a l e d t h e c au s e o f a c t i o n . P u ta n o t h e r wa y, 16 al low ing ade fe ndant t o c once al ac au se of a ct iona nd the n a sse rt

the statut e of 17 lim itatio ns a s ade fe nse w oul d be co ntrary to the int en t be hin d th e W D A

. T he 18 Le gislature did n ot intend for statutory beneficiar ies to be uncom pensated in cases 19 w he re the tor

tf ea sor ke pt the m

f ro m le ar nin g that the y ha d a cau se of ac tio n. Far fr om 20 deterring negligent con duct, barr ing a plain t i ff ’ s cause of ac tion, even in ligh t of a21

1 de fe ndant’ s f

ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t, te lls tor tf ea sor s th at

the y m aye sc ap e ci vil 2 lia bil ity so lon g as the y suc ce ssf ull y co nc ea l the ir w ro ngdo ing s fo r thr ee y ear s. 3 Ra the r than pr om oti ng s af ety of li fe a nd l im

b by m ak ing ne gli ge nc e tha t c au se s de ath 4 co stl y to th e wro ng do er , the w ro ngdo er w oul d a voi d any

c ost inc ur re d by it s 5 negligent conduct by m erely hidin g evidence of the conduct for a set per iod of tim e. 6 Inli ght of the pur pose be hin d th e W D A , the L eg isl at ur e co uld not

ha ve int en de d f

or 7 de fe ndants to be e nti tle d to hid e be hin d f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t. I nde ed , w e w ill 8 ne ith er sanc tio n f

ra ud n or pr es um e the L eg isl at

ur e int ended to do s o by

a llo w ing a 9 pa rty to co nc ea l a w ro ng unt il the sta tut e of lim itatio ns ha s run an d the n be ne fi t f ro m 1 0 the de c e p t i o n . H a v i n g c o n s i d e r e dt h e p l a i nl a n g u a g e , h i s t o ry , a n dp u r p o s e o f t he 11 W D A , w e co nc lud e tha t the L eg isl at ur e int en de d f

or the doc tr ine of

f ra udul en t 12 co nc ea lm en t t o a

ppl y to w ro ngf

ul d eath a ct ion s. 13 3. Missouri Su prem e C ourt’ s inter pret ation of its w rongful d eath act 14 { 31} D ef

en da nts a lso a rg ue that the Mi sso ur i C ourts’ c onclu si on tha t f ra udul en t 15 concealm ent applies to th e Missouri W DAdoes not com pel the sam e conclusion here. 16 Specifica lly , D efendants m aintain that a crucial differe nce b etwe en the Ne w Me xico 17 an d th e Mi sso ur i w ro ngf ul d eath a ct s re ga rd ing the ac cr ua l da te of a ca

use of a ct ion 18 re nde rs Mi sso ur i l awina ppl ic ab le to New Me xic o. I n O’ Grady v. Brown , the22

1 Mi sso ur i S upr em e Co urt obse rv ed tha t, m uc h lik e N ew Me xic o’ s W D A , the pur pose 2 of Missouri’s wr ongful death act is “ to provide com pensation to bereaved plaintiffs 3 fo r the ir

los s, to en sur e tha t tortf

ea sor s pay fo r the co nse que nc es of the ir ac tio ns, a nd 4 generally

to deter harm ful conduct which m ight lead to d eath.” O’ Grady v. Brown , 5 65 4 S .W .2d 90 4, 9 09 (Mo . 19 83 ) (en ba nc ). O ’G radysough t to “ apply the statutory 6 la ng ua ge wit h a vi ew to pro m ot in g th e ap pa ren t ob ject of th e le gi sl at iv e en act m en t.” 7 Id

. ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and cit at ion om itt ed ). Mo re r ec en tly , Mi sso ur i c ourts 8 ha ve he ld tha t the doc tr ine o f frau dul en t c onc ea lm en t a ppl ie s to w ro ngf

ul d eath 9 act io ns in Mi ss ou ri. Se e e. g. , St at e e x r e l

. Be i s ly v. Peri

go , 469 S. W

. 3d 4 34, 445 10 (Mo . 20 15 ). 11 { 32} In the pa st w e hav e fo und the Mi sso ur i Supr em e Court ’ s inte rp re ta tio n of its 1 2 wr o n g fu l d ea t h ac th el p fu l i n as ce rt ai n i n g t h e l eg i s l at i v e i n t en tb eh i n dNe w M ex i co ’s 13 W DA. Se e La ngha m v . B ee ch A irc raf t C orp. , 197 5- N MS C- 064, ¶ 19, 88 N

. M. 516 , 14 543 P. 2d 4 84 ( “ O ur

w ro ngf ul d eath s ta tut es w er e ta ke n f ro m Misso ur i and this 15 [C ] ourt ha s of

te n f oll ow ed the vi ew s of

the Mi sso ur i S upr em e Co urt i n it s 16 interpretations of t hese statutes.”). Regardless of w hether Missouri’s c onclusi on that 17 fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t w ill tol l i ts wro ngf ul d eath s ta tut e’ s l im it at ionpe ri od i s 18 “ pr es um ed ” to g uid e our de ci sio n he re or is m er el y “ en tit le d to r es pe ct fu l23

1 consideration” ( Ca in v

. B ow lby , 114 F

. 2d 5 19, 523 (1 0th Ci r. 1940 )) , our c onc lus ion 2 wou ld be th e sa m e. But see E sta te of Krahmer exre l. P ec k v. L aure l H ea lth ca re 3 Providers, L

LC , 2014 -N MC A -0 01, ¶ 13, 315 P

. 3d 2 98 ( “ Mi sso ur i’ s [ w ro ngf ul d eath 4 act ’s] hi st or ic al rel ev an ce t o o urAct h as en de d.” ). 5 4 . The parties’ statutory con stru ct i o n a rg ume nt s el ev a te fo rm o v er substance 6 and do n ot aid the analysis her e 7 { 33} The parties, focusing less on the histo ry and purpos es of the statute and m ore 8 on p er iph er al r

ule s of sta tut or

y co nstru ct ion , de vot e portio ns of the ir br ie fs to ar gui ng 9 whi ch of t he se ru le s o f st atut or y co ns tru ct io n c on tro l. Pl ai nt iff arg ue s t ha t t he W DA 10 is r em ed ia l l eg isl at ion , e na ct ed in de ro ga tio n of the c om m on l aw , a nd tha t st at

ute s in 11 de ro ga tio n of

c om m on l awa re ge ne ra lly

str ic tly c onstru ed

. B ut, P la int if

f co nti nue s, 12 w he re astatut e is b othr em ed ia l and i n de ro ga tio n of c om m on l aw th e qu es tion of 13 w he the r the sta tut e m odi fi es co m m on law is to be str ic tly co nstru ed an d, if the statut e 14 doe s m odi fy

c om m on law , its ap pli catio n should be lib er al ly c onstru ed

. D ef

en da nt 15 argues that the W DAstatute of lim itations m ust be strictly

applied, because it alter ed 16 the com

m on-law rule barring recovery for a wr ongful death. W e ar e not persuaded 17 tha t e ith er

c onstru ct io n a ids or

m at er ia lly

a ff ec ts o ur a na ly sis he re . W e w ill not 18 int er pr et statut es to ch an ge the co m m on lawunl es s th ey

do s o w ithc lari ty

. T he re is24

1 no m or e re as on to re

j ec t a fa ir re ad ing tha t change s the co m m on law than ther e is t o 2 rej ect a f

air re ading th at repeals an earlier statute. I ndeed, “ [t] here is no hierarc hical 3 dif fe re nc e be tw ee n co m

m on law ru le s w hic h are ba se d onstatut or y e na ctm en ts and 4 co m m on la w ru le s whic h are bas ed in jud ic ia l de ci si on s.” H ane buth v

. B el l 5 He licopter Int’l , 694 P. 2d 143, 146 (A la. 198 4) (statin g that wr ongful death statutes 6 “ shou ld b e lib er al ly

c onstru ed

to ac co m

pli sh th eir

r em ed ia l purp ose , ” not 7 “ cr ipp le d .

. . by

. . . anarr owc onstru ct io n on th e ba sis that the se statut es a re in 8 de ro ga tio n of

the c om m on l aw ”) ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ); see 9 als o D en nis M. Doi ro n, A Be tter Interpretati on of th e W rong ful Death Ac t , 43 Me. 10 L

. Re v. 449 , 459 (1 991) (“ [T ] he ru le of str ic t c onstru ct ion , a s sp ec if ic al ly appl ie d to 11 [Maine’ s] wr ongful d eath act, is no lon ger appropriate because contem porary 12 co m m on l awpr inc ipl es ove rwhe lm ing ly supp ort re co ve ry fo r w ro ngf ul d eath. ”)

. T he 13 De fendants’ s t at utory construction argum ents here elevate “ form alistic legal 14 abstraction[s] ” (

H ane buth , 694 P

. 2d a t 14 5 -4 6 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio ns 1 5 o mi t t e d ) ) , ab o v e r e a s o n , l o g i c , a n de qu i t y. 16 { 34} W e ar e not pre s en t ed h ere with an issue of stare decisis. N or does “Ne w 17 Me xic o j ur isp ru de nc e . . . poi nt[ , ] ine luc ta bly ” or ot he rw ise , to the c onc lus ion 18 D ef en da nt urg es he re , that Ne w Me xic o’ s histo ri ca lly str ic t a ppl ic at ionof

statut es of25

1 lim itatio n pr ohi bit s a

ppl ic at ionof

the doc tr ine of fr au dul en t c onc ea lm en t he re . I t i s 2 t ru e, as De fe n d an t s o b s er v e, t h at we h av e d e cl i n ed t o re ad t er m s i n t o t h e WDA ’s 3 l i m i t at i o np r o v i sio n. F or e xa m ple , in Ki lk

en ny , 19 61 -NMSC -0 19 , ¶¶ 7- 14 , Na ts eway , 4 1952 -N MS C- 104, ¶

26, a nd Sta te e

x re l. D eM

oss v . D istri ct Co ur t of

the Six th 5 Judicial District , 195 1- N MS C- 010, ¶ 9, 55 N

. M. 135, 227 P

. 2d 9 37, w e de cl ine d to 6 adj ust the statu torily dictated date o f accrual o f th e cause of action. But here we are 7 no t re ad in g an ex cep ti on in to th e st atut e o r ch an gi ng a le gi sl at iv e ch oi ce. Rat he r, we 8 ar e carr y ing out the L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt tha t the c om

m on- lawdoc tr ine of

f ra udul en t 9 co nc eal m en t ap pl ie s t o t he li m it at io ns pro vi si on of t he W DA. 10 { 35} Inf

ac t, the am en dm en ts f

oll ow ing Ki lk

en nya nd Na tse wa

yde m onstrate the 11 Le gis l at u re ’s intent to expand the class of statutory beneficiar ies who m ay

rec over 12 un de r th e WD A; ap pl y in g t he do ct rin e o f frau du le nt co nc eal m en t t o t he W DA 13 lim itatio ns p er iod

is co nsi ste nt w ithsuc h an in tent. D ef en da nts a rg ue that i t i s th e 1 4 L e g i s l a tu r e ’ s r o l e , n o tt h i s C o u rt ’ s r o l e , t o d e t e rm i n e w h e t h e r at o l l i n g p r o v i sio n 15 ap pli es to the W D A

. D ef en da nts re ly , in p ar

t, on Ki lk en nya nd Na tse wa

y , obs er vin g 16 tha t i n th ose c as es w e re fu se d to c onc lud e tha t the da te of de ath wa s th e ac cr ua l date 17 fo r pur

pose s of the lim itatio n pr ovi sio n of the W D A a nd l ef t i t t o th e L eg isl at

ur e to 18 al te r the statut e. I n r es pons e to the se ca se s, the L eg isl at ur e did a m en d th e W D A by26

1 ex pli ci tly

statin g th at

ac au se of act ionund er

thi s st at ute a cc ru es a s of

the da te of 2 de at h. See 1961 L aw s, ch

. 202, § 1. T he out co m es in Ki lk en nya nd Na tse wa

yref lect 3 the ge ne ra l purp ose be hin d sta tut es of lim itatio ns, w hic h is t o pr ote ct de fe ndants f

ro m 4 ha vin g to de fe nd a ga ins t st al e cl ai m s and t o e nsur e tha t pla int if fs ti m el y pur sue 5 cl ai m s. Se e G arc ia v

. L aF arge , 1995 -N MS C- 019, ¶ 14, 119 N

. M. 532 , 893 P

. 2d 4 28. 6 Inc ontra st, he re w e fo cu s onf rau du le nt c onc ea lm en t, adoc tr ine w hic h pr ev en ts 7 d efen da nt s fr om

be ne fit ti ng fro m

th ei r own m is co nd uc t. S e e, e . g . , Ke rn , 8 1985 -N MS C- 031, ¶

10. 9 { 36} N or

a re w e pe rs ua de d by

D ef en da nts ’ r el ianc e on tw o ca se s f ro m the Co urt of 10 Appe al s. A s di sc uss ed e ar lie r, in Pe rry v. Staver , th e pla int if f ini tia lly f ile d hi s 11 wro ng fu l d ea t h c l ai m in th e wro ng co un ty. See 197 0- N MC A -0 96, ¶ 19. T he 12 de fen da nt s m ov edto di sm is s, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e. Se e id

. 13 ¶¶ 3, 19. T he plaintiff m oved to vacate the dism issal, and the district court issued an 14 order directing the defendants to sho w cause why the order dism issin g with prej udice 15 sh ou ld no t b e se t as id e. Se e id. ¶ 3. Inthe ir r es pons e, the de fe ndants state d th at the 16 dism issal “ does not prevent” the plaintiff “ from taking any

action separate and apart 17 from this cause.” Id

. ¶ 4 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. 18 { 37} The district court vacated and set aside the original dism issal order and instead27

1 di sm is se d wi th ou t p reju di ce. Se e id. ¶ 5. T he pla int if

f ne xt fi le d his w ro ngf

ul d eath 2 ac tio n in the co rr ec t co unty , an d thi s tim e the de fe ndants m ove d to d ism iss be ca use 3 t h e li m it at io ns pe rio d i n t he W DA had run . Se e id. ¶¶ 3- 9. T he district court 4 di sm is se d a ga in , and th e pl ai nt iff ap pe al edto th e Co ur t o f App eal s. Se e id. ¶ 6. On 5 ap pe al , the pla int if

fs ar gue d, in par

t, tha t the de fe ndant w as es top pe d fr om a sse rt ing 6 a sta tut e of lim itatio ns de fe nse be ca use the de fe ndant’ s langua ge in r es pons e to the 7 earlier order to show cause—specifically , the defendants’ statem ent that the dism issal 8 did not prevent the plaintiff from taking any

separate action—am ount ed to a wa iver 9 of th atde fen se . Se e id. In ad dit ion to re j ec tin g the pla int if

f' s wa ive r ar gum en t on the 10 fa ct s, the Co urt of

Appe al s held tha t the doc tr ine of equit ab le es top pe l did not a ppl y 11 t o th e WD A. Se e id. ¶ ¶ 3

- 9

. T h e C o u rt c o n c l u d e d th a t “ [ e ] s t o p p e l c a n n ot b e 12 suc ce ssf

ull y a sse rt ed to le ngthe n t he e xis te nc e of suc h astatut or ily

c re at ed r igh t of 13 recovery .” Se e id. ¶

6. 14 { 38} Be ca

use the iss ue in P erryw as equit ab le es top pe l, not f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t, 15 P erryis inappo site to our decision here. A s we have explained, the two doctrines are 16 dif fe re nt. O nly

f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t c onc er ns itse lf w ithade fe ndant’ s w ill fu l, 17 deceitful conduct, and it is consist ent with the history and purpos e o f th e WD A that 18 the L eg isl at

ur e int en de d to a

ppl y f ra udul en t c onc ea lm en t t o th e limitatio ns p ro vis ion28

1 of th e WD A. Se e id. ¶

11. 2 { 39} Clark

sup ports o ur

c onc lus ionhe re . I n Clark, the de ce de nt, w ho s uf fe re d f ro m 3 se ve re ob struc tiv e sle ep apne a, die d a ft er takin g anum

be r of m ed ic at ion s in 4 co m bi na ti on , in cl ud in g m et ha do ne an d P r o p ul si d. See 200 4- N MC A -1 19, ¶ 2. 5 Fo llo w ing an au top sy the m ed ic al ex am ine r co nc lud ed tha t it was m etha done 6 in to xi cat io n th at ha d cau se d t he de ced en t’s d eat h. Se e id. Two y ears la te r th e FDA 7 an noun ce d th at

P ro pul sid

w oul d be dis co nti nue d du e to i ts a sso ci at ionw ithr ep orts 8 of he art ab no rm al it ie s and de at hs

. Se e id. T he pla int if fs fi le d th ei r ini tia l c om

pla int , 9 ag ai ns t th e do ct or s who ha d bee n t reat in g t he de ced en t, i n a ti m el y m an ne r. Se e id

. 1 0 T he p l a i n t i f

f s d e p o s e do n e o f

t w o d o c t o r s i n v o l v e di n p r e s c r i b i n g t h e m u l tip le 11 m ed ic at io ns a li tt le aft er t hr ee years p as t t he de ced en t’s d eat h. Se e id. ¶ 3. 12 { 40} Inhis de posi tio n, that do ct or te sti fi ed that he did

not kn ow wha t ki lle d th e 13 d ecedent b ut that Propuls id would be “ at the top of his lis t.” I d. T h atdoc tor 14 ex pla ine d th at

it w oul d not have be enkno w n a t the ti m e of the auto psy

that P ro pul sid 15 shou ld b e co nsi de re d asus pe ct in the de ce de nt’ s de ath, but a t the ti m e of

the 16 de po si ti on Pro pu ls id wou ld be bl am ed if th ere was no ot he r “ ob vi ou s ex pl an at io n.” 17 Se e id

. (int er

na l quota tio n m ar

ks om itt ed ). T he pla int if fs am en de d thei r co m

pla int 1 8 t o a d dt w o p h a rma c e u t i c a l c o mp a n i e s a s d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e i r

p r o du c t s l i ab i l i t y c l a i m,29

1 but th ese d efendant s uccessfully m oved to dism iss based on the fact that the am ended 2 co m pl ai nt ha d b een fil ed m or e th an th ree years a fte r th e d eced en t h addi ed

. Se e id. 3 ¶¶ 3 -4

. 4 { 41} O n a

ppe al to the Co urt of

Appe al s, the pla int if

fs ur ge d the Co urt t o a

ppl y the 5 dis co ve ry

r ule to the W D A a nd t o c onc lud e tha t the ir c au se of ac tio n acc ru ed on the 6 date they

learned that Pr opul sid and the two add ition al d efendants m ay have caused 7 t he in jury that led to th e d eced en t’s d eat h. Se e id. ¶ ¶ 3

- 5

. T h e C o u rtof

A ppe al s 8 de cl in edto ap pl y

th e d is co ve ry

rul e to th e WD A. Se e id. ¶ 20. B ut i n di sti ngui shi ng 9 som e of

the out -o f-

j ur isd ic tio n auth or ity

the pla int if

fs r el ie d up on i n t ha t cas e, the 10 Co urt ob se rv ed

that m an y

of tho se c as es inv olv ed

“ ex ce pti ona l c ir cu m stanc es or 11 sit ua tio ns whe re it w as im poss ibl e fo r the pla int if f to k nowthe c au se of

the 12 decedent’ s death in order to be able to tim ely file a wr ongful d eath claim ” ( id. ¶ 16), 1 3 s u g g e s t i n g t h a ts u c h c i r c u ms t a n c e s mi g h t r e qu i r e ad i f f e r e n tr e s u l t

. Ac c o r d i n g l y, 14 while holding that the discovery rule w as inapplicable to t h e WD A, the Court 15 indicated that it m ay have decided the case differe ntly if the defe ndant’s conduct had 16 am ou nt edto frau du le nt co nc eal m en t. See Id

. 17 { 42} W e conclude that neither P errynor Clark c om pe ls the c onc lus ionthat the 18 do ct rine of fr audulent con cealm ent m ay not applyto the W DA

. To the extent that30

1 ei th er o pi ni on is in co ns is te nt wit h o urde ci si on to da y it is ov erru le d. 2 III . C on cl us ion 3 { 43} W e hold that th e doctrine of fr audulent con cealm ent m ay toll the three-y ear 4 st atut e o f li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r wro ng fu l d eat h a ct io ns in New Mex ic o. Ho wev er, we 5 do no t dete rm ine w he the r D ef en da nts f ra udul en tly c onc ea le d P la int if

f’ s c au se of 6 ac tio n. O n re m an d the dis tr ic t c ourt sh al l de te rm ine if the li m itatio ns p er iod

se t f orth 7 in S ec tio n 41 -2 -2 w as tol le d un til P la int if f ha d a ct ua l kn ow le dge of its ca

use of a ct ion 8 or , thr oughr ea sona

ble dil ige nc e, P la int if

f co uld ha ve le ar ne d it ha d a ca use of a ct ion

. 9 {4 4 } IT IS S O ORDERE D.

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ________

____ __ 11 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

12 WE CONCUR:

13 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 14 CH ARLES W. DA NIEL S, Ch ief Justice

15 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 16 ED WAR

D L . C HÁV EZ , Just ice31

1 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 2 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Justice

3 JUD ITH N . N AKA MU RA , Just ice, not p articipating