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 purchased an automobile insurance policy effective from February 3, 1989, to March 3, 1989. She failed to pay the renewal premium by the due date, resulting in a lapse of coverage. On March 7, 1989, the Defendant was involved in a fatal automobile accident. The Plaintiff, an insurance company, denied coverage, asserting that the policy had expired before the accident occurred (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, holding that the Defendant was uninsured at the time of the accident and that the Plaintiff had no duty to defend or indemnify her.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that her insurance coverage was in effect at the time of the accident, that the insurer failed to provide the required ten-day notice of cancellation, and that the insurer had a duty to defend her in the wrongful death action (paras 1, 6, 13, 16).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's policy had lapsed due to nonpayment of the renewal premium, that no ten-day notice was required for a lapse in coverage, and that it had no duty to defend as the accident occurred outside the policy period (paras 1, 9, 13, 16).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant insured at the time of the accident on March 7, 1989?
- Did the Plaintiff have a duty to defend the Defendant in the wrongful death action?
- Was the Plaintiff required to provide a ten-day notice of cancellation under Section 59A-18-29(A)?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the Defendant was uninsured at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff had no duty to defend, and the ten-day notice requirement did not apply (para 18).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Apodaca CJ. and Hartz J. concurring):
Insurance Coverage: The Court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that the Defendant's insurance coverage began on February 3, 1989, and ended on March 3, 1989. The Defendant received multiple documents confirming these dates and did not object to them. The evidence also showed that the Defendant attempted to reinstate coverage after the accident, further supporting the finding that she was uninsured on March 7, 1989 (paras 6-12).
Duty to Defend: The Court held that the Plaintiff had no duty to defend the Defendant in the wrongful death action because the accident occurred outside the policy period. The allegations in the complaint did not create a duty to defend, as the actual date of the accident was undisputed and fell after the policy had lapsed (paras 13-15).
Ten-Day Notice Requirement: The Court concluded that the ten-day notice requirement under Section 59A-18-29(A) did not apply because the case involved a lapse in coverage due to nonpayment of the renewal premium, not a cancellation of the policy during its term. The statutory notice requirement applies only to cancellations, not to lapses (paras 16-17).