¶ 9, 127 N.M. 63, 976 P.2d 1015. Since the legislature that passed the RUS would not have understood the statute to impact the liability of public landowners, we could decline to extend the statute beyond its original meaning. In addition, the RUS is a statute in derogation of the common law, limiting the common law right of tort victims to seek compensation from tortfeasors. As such, we could adopt the narrower of the alternative constructions, resolving ambiguity against a legislative intent to deny citizens those rights. {11} Also, absent express words to the contrary, neither the state nor its subdivisions are included within general words of a statute. See Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 780, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Borgen v. Fort Pitt Museum Assocs., 83 Pa.
holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments holding that a state or agency is not a person subject to qui tam liability under the false claims act holding that a state agency is not a person subject to suit under federal false claims act holding implied false certifications must be material to the governments payment decision in order to be actionable under the false claims act