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 Defendant was injured in a car accident involving another driver, who was insured, and a phantom truck driver who fled the scene and was considered uninsured under New Mexico law. The Defendant collected $26,000 from the insured driver’s liability policy but claimed her damages exceeded $51,000. She sought $25,000 in uninsured motorist (UIM) benefits from her own insurance policy, asserting that the phantom truck driver contributed to the accident (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Held that the Defendant was entitled to pursue her uninsured motorist claim against the phantom truck driver (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant (American States Insurance Company): Argued that the Defendant was not entitled to UIM benefits because the amount she had already received from the insured driver exceeded her UIM policy limit. The Plaintiff relied on the precedent set in Fasulo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., which held that UIM coverage should be reduced by the total benefits received from concurrent tortfeasors (paras 2-3).
- Defendant-Appellee (Ramona Frost): Contended that UIM coverage should apply separately to the uninsured phantom truck driver and the underinsured motorist. She cited American Mutual Insurance Co. v. Romero and other cases to argue that the benefits from the insured driver should not offset her UIM coverage (paras 3-4, 7-8).
Legal Issues
- Does New Mexico law allow uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage to apply separately to each concurrent tortfeasor when one is uninsured and the other is underinsured?
- Should the Defendant’s UIM benefits be reduced by the amount she received from the insured driver’s liability policy?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the trial court’s decision and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, American States Insurance Company (para 11).
Reasons
Per Ransom J. (Baca and Montgomery JJ. concurring):
The Court held that under New Mexico’s statutory scheme, uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage are not distinct and cannot be applied separately to concurrent tortfeasors. The Court emphasized that the statutory language in Section 66-5-301(B) includes underinsured motorist coverage as part of uninsured motorist coverage, unlike the statutory schemes in other jurisdictions such as New Jersey. The Court relied on its prior decisions in Fasulo and Schmick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., which established that UIM coverage must be reduced by the total liability insurance proceeds received from all concurrent tortfeasors. The Court rejected the Defendant’s reliance on American Mutual Insurance Co. v. Romero and Continental Insurance Co. v. Fahey, as those cases were decided under different statutory frameworks or addressed unrelated issues (paras 6-10).
The Court concluded that allowing separate application of UIM coverage for each tortfeasor would contravene the legislative intent and statutory construction of New Mexico’s uninsured motorist law (para 10).