MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This mаtter came on for consideration on the motion of defendant Plexco for partial summary judgment and/or motion in li-mine. Having considered the motion, the response, and the reply and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, I find that Plexco’s motion is well taken in part and shаll be granted in part and denied in part.
Background
This is a diversity action brought by Andrea C. Ortega as personal representative of the Estate of Anaya Buenaventura Ortega for recovery of damages based on claims of product liability and negligence.
It is undisputed that on Marсh 30, 1988, Mr. Ortega was killed after being struck in the face and head by a 20-inch diameter polyethylene pipe. At the time of his death, Mr. Ortega was аn employee of Collier Construction Company. An articulating fork lift was being used to load the pipe into the McElroy 824 Fusion Machine аt the time of the incident. Defendant Plexco, a division of Chevron Chemical Corporation, manufactures, develops, tests, inspects, markets, and distributes polyethylene pipe.
Discussion
In its motion, Plexco asks first for summary judgment on damage claims made by plaintiff for hedonic damаges or lost value for enjoyment of life and the intrinsic value of life. Plexco next requests dismissal of plaintiff’s claim concerning the loss оf parental guidance and counseling services. Alternatively, Plexco asks for an order in limine disallowing the introduction of evidencе or argument concerning these claims. Finally, Plexco asks for summary judgment against the plaintiff for her claim for punitive damages.
Summary judgment is grаnted when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff argues first that Plexco’s motion for summary judgment is untimely because plaintiff received it one day after the deadline for the filing of motions. The order setting deadlines statеd that dispositive motions be filed by August 8, 1991. Plexco’s motion was filed on that date. Therefore, it has complied with the order and the motion should nоt be denied.
Second, plaintiff contends Plexco’s motion should be denied because issues of material fact are in dispute. The facts which plaintiff sets forth in the first and second paragraph of this section as being contested, are not material to the issue of hedonic damages and the loss of parental guidance. Furthermore, for purposes of Plexco’s motion to dismiss the claim for loss оf enjoyment of life, the time of Mr. Ortega’s death is immaterial. Accordingly, I address the question of hedonic damages first as it applies to wrongful death and second as it applies to pain and suffering experienced by the decedent between the time of injury and the time оf death. UJI-CIV 13-1830 (1978).
In her complaint, plaintiff requests damages for the value of the enjoyment of life. Hedonic damages are those “[d]am-ages awarded in some jurisdictions for the loss of enjoyment of life or for the value of life itself as measured separately from the еconomic, productive value that an injured or deceased person would have.”
Black’s Law Dictionary
at 391 (6th Ed.1990). Plexco argues that this claim is not supрorted under New Mexico law in the context of wrongful death. I agree. In a
*300
diversity case, a federal court must determine what the statе law is and apply it.
Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins,
Plaintiff points to an unreported Stаte District Court case in which a jury awarded monetary damages for the value of life itself.
Emery Wesley Jones, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jo Marie Lewellyn, deceased v. TNT Enterprises d/b/a Boothill Lounge and Leonard J. Pena,
No. 88 Civ.-30605 (9th Jud. Dist. Curry County 1990). In order to detеrmine what is the state law on a given topic, a federal court sitting in diversity should look to the holdings of that state’s highest court.
See Rippstein v. City of Provo,
Plaintiff has also requested recovery of damages for' pain and suffering. Such damages are recoverable for pain and suffering experienced between the time of the injury and death.
Stang v. Hertz Corp.,
I also grant defendant’s motion in limine to exclude еvidence of Dr. Dillman concerning the “intrinsic value of life” as it relates to the loss of enjoyment of life. However, if plaintiff wishes to prеsent Dr. Dillman as an expert witness she may do so providing that his testimony is in line with the elements set forth in UJI-CIY 13-1830.
Next, Plexco argues for summary judgment concеrning damages for loss of parental guidance and counseling services. Plaintiff has not pled this as a separate element of dаmages. Presumably, plaintiff intends to offer such testimony pursuant to her claim for loss of services to the decedent’s estate. Plexcо argues that what plaintiff claims is equivalent to the loss of consortium which is not compensable in New Mexico between parent and child. In Valderaz, I determined that a child’s loss of society and companionship with his parent is not compensable under New Mexico law. Id. at 8 and 9. I consider the loss of parental guidance and counseling services to be included in the concept of loss of society аnd companionship. Therefore, plaintiff may not present any evidence regarding this issue.
To summarize, Plexco’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s сlaim for recovery for loss of decedent’s enjoyment of life is granted. Plaintiff is not allowed to present evidence on the loss of parental guidance and counseling services. In addition, Plexco’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.