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 was injured in an automobile accident involving a driver and a vehicle owner, both of whom were insured. The Plaintiff settled claims with the driver for $25,000 and with the owner for $35,000, totaling $60,000. These policies excluded punitive damages, and the Plaintiff sought to recover punitive damages under her own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, which had a limit of $30,000 (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, holding that the Plaintiff's recovery of actual damages from the tortfeasors offset her UIM coverage.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the tortfeasors' liability policies, which excluded punitive damages, rendered them "uninsured" or "partially uninsured" for purposes of punitive damages. She contended that she was entitled to recover punitive damages under her UIM coverage without offsetting the $60,000 already recovered from the tortfeasors (paras 4, 6, and 8).
- Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that the Plaintiff's UIM coverage was subject to a valid offset provision in the policy, which reduced the UIM coverage by the amounts already recovered from the tortfeasors. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff's recovery of $60,000 exceeded her $30,000 UIM coverage, leaving no additional amount payable (paras 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Whether the tortfeasors' exclusion of punitive damages in their liability policies rendered them "uninsured" or "partially uninsured" for purposes of UIM coverage (para 4).
- Whether the Defendant was entitled to offset the amounts recovered by the Plaintiff from the tortfeasors against her UIM coverage (para 4).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Defendant was entitled to offset the amounts recovered by the Plaintiff from the tortfeasors against her UIM coverage (para 11).
Reasons
Per Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge (Robinson and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court held that punitive damages are included within UIM coverage in New Mexico because they derive from actual damages. However, the Plaintiff's UIM policy contained a valid offset provision, which reduced her $30,000 UIM coverage by the $60,000 she had already recovered from the tortfeasors. The Court reasoned that the offset provision was enforceable and consistent with public policy, as punitive damages are part of bodily injury claims and do not warrant a special exception to offset rules. The Plaintiff's argument that the tortfeasors were "uninsured" or "partially uninsured" for punitive damages was rejected as overly semantic and unsupported by statutory or regulatory language. The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff's recovery exceeded her UIM coverage limit, and the offset provision precluded any additional recovery under her policy (paras 5-10).