New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 15-7-9 (2026)

Confidentiality of records.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A. The following records created or maintained by the risk management division of
the general services department are confidential and shall not be subject to any right of
inspection by any person except the New Mexico legislative council or a state employee
within the scope of the New Mexico legislative council's or state employee's official
duties:

       (1)    records pertaining to insurance coverage; provided that any record of a
particular coverage shall be available to any public officer, public employee or
governmental entity insured under such coverage; and

      (2)     records pertaining to claims for damages or other relief against any
governmental entity or public officer or employee; provided that the records shall be
subject to public inspection on and after the earliest of:

           (a) the date a final judgment is issued resolving the claim and all appeals and
rights to appeal have been exhausted; or

          (b) the date a settlement agreement is signed by all of the parties.

   B. Records protected pursuant to Subsection A of this section shall be made
available as necessary for purposes of audit or defense. Any person performing such
audit or providing such defense shall keep such records confidential, except as required
otherwise by law.

History: 1978 Comp., § 15-7-9, enacted by Laws 1981, ch. 280, § 1; 2020, ch. 37, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For inspection of public records generally, see 14-2-1 et seq., 14-
3-7 and 14-3-8 NMSA 1978.

The 2020 amendment, effective May 20, 2020, removed the one hundred eighty-day
delay in releasing public records pertaining to claims against governmental entities,
public officers or public employees after the occurrence of certain events, changed and
removed the events that trigger release of public records pertaining to certain claims
against governmental entities, public officers or public employees, and eliminated
criminal penalties for revealing confidential records pertaining to certain claims against
governmental entities, public officers or public employees; in the section heading,
deleted "penalty"; in Subsection A, in the introductory clause, after "division", added "of
the general services department", after "person", deleted "not a state officer, member of
the legislature" and added "except the New Mexico legislative council", and after "scope
of", added "the New Mexico legislative council’s or state employee’s", in Paragraph
A(2), in the introductory clause, after "provided", deleted "such records shall be subject
to public inspection by New Mexico citizens one hundred eighty days after the latest of
the following dates" and added "that the records shall be subject to public inspection on
or after the earliest of", deleted former Subparagraph A(2)(a) and redesignated former
Subparagraph A(2)(b) as Subparagraph A(2)(a), in Subparagraph A(2)(a), after "the
date", deleted "all litigation involving the claim and the occurrence giving rise thereto
has been brought to" and added "a", and after "final judgment", added "is issued
resolving the claim", deleted former Subparagraphs A(2)(c) and A(2)(d) and added a
new Subparagraph A(2)(b); and deleted former Subsection C, which provided a criminal
penalty for revealing protected records.

Section does not encompass all public bodies. — The clear, unambiguous language
limiting confidentiality to “records created or maintained by the risk management
division” means that this section does not encompass all public bodies, but rather only
those insured by the risk management division. Board of Comm’rs v. Las Cruces Sun-
News, 2003-NMCA-102, 134 N.M. 283, 76 P.3d 36.

Funds held by private insurers not protected. — Nothing in the Tort Claims Act
suggests the legislature intended to extend the protection of this section to funds held
by private insurers. Board of Comm’rs v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 2003-NMCA-102, 134
N.M. 283, 76 P.3d 36.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — What preliminary data gathered by
public departments or officials constitute "public records" within the right of access,
inspection, and copying by private persons, 26 A.L.R.4th 639.

76 C.J.S. Records § 74 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case: Bd. of Commissioners v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 76 P.3d 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003).
Bd. of Commissioners v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 76 P.3d 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 30× “Section 15-7-9, however, has not been amended to extend confidentiality to records held by public bodies that choose coverage from sources other than RMD.”
Paz v. Tijerina, 165 P.3d 1167 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “” He also argued that Respondents were required to disclose records relevant to the claim pursuant to Section 15-7-9(B), which provides that records created or maintained by RMD shall be made available “as necessary for purposes of audit or defense.”
Libit v. UNM Lobo Club (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “{13} Relatedly, we note that Section 6-5A-1 does not specifically exempt any records from disclosure.”
— N.M. Stat. § 15-7-9(A) — 1 case
Libit v. UNM Lobo Club (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “{13} Relatedly, we note that Section 6-5A-1 does not specifically exempt any records from disclosure.”
— N.M. Stat. § 15-7-9(A)(2) — 1 case
Bd. of Commissioners v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 76 P.3d 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 15-7-9, however, has not been amended to extend confidentiality to records held by public bodies that choose coverage from sources other than RMD.”
— N.M. Stat. § 15-7-9(B) — 1 case
Paz v. Tijerina, 165 P.3d 1167 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “” He also argued that Respondents were required to disclose records relevant to the claim pursuant to Section 15-7-9(B), which provides that records created or maintained by RMD shall be made available “as necessary for purposes of audit or defense.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.