This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a permissive driver of a vehicle insured by the Defendant, was rear-ended by an underinsured motorist, resulting in severe injuries and damages exceeding $95,000. The Plaintiff settled with the tortfeasor for $25,000 and collected $25,000 under the underinsured motorist coverage of the policy insuring the vehicle she was driving. She sought to "stack" the underinsured motorist coverage from two additional policies issued by the Defendant for other vehicles owned by the same insured, but the Defendant denied coverage, arguing that she was not entitled to stack as she was neither a named insured nor a family member of the policyholder (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the Plaintiff was not permitted to stack the underinsured motorist coverages as a matter of law (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the language of the Defendant's policies allowed her, as an "insured person," to stack the underinsured motorist coverages across all three policies, as the policies explicitly permitted stacking for any insured person (paras 4, 6-7).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the Plaintiff could not stack the policies because she was not a named insured or a family member of the policyholder, and thus was not entitled to the additional coverage (paras 4, 6).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff, as a permissive user of an insured vehicle, is entitled to stack underinsured motorist coverages from multiple policies issued by the Defendant (para 1).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the trial court's decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, allowing her to stack the underinsured motorist coverages across all three policies (paras 9-10).
Reasons
Per Franchini J. (Ransom and Baca JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant's policies were unambiguous and explicitly defined "insured persons" to include permissive users of the insured vehicle. The policies also stated that the limit of liability for underinsured motorist coverage would be the total limits for each separate premium paid under the policies. The Court emphasized that the language of the policies permitted stacking for any insured person, including the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant's argument regarding named insureds or family members was irrelevant given the clear terms of the contracts (paras 5-7).
The Court further noted that the legislative intent behind underinsured motorist coverage was to place injured parties in the same position as if the tortfeasor were fully insured. Enforcing the policies as written, the Plaintiff was entitled to recover the total limit of liability across all three policies to address her damages, which exceeded the coverage provided by the tortfeasor and the single policy initially accessed (paras 8-9).