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 driving behind her sister, who was involved in a fatal accident while operating a separate vehicle. The Defendant sought underinsured motorist (UM) benefits under an Allstate insurance policy covering a vehicle owned by her mother-in-law, which the Defendant was driving at the time of the accident. The Defendant claimed damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) arising from witnessing her sister's accident (paras 1, 6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate Insurance Company, holding that UM coverage was not available under the terms of the insurance policy (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant (Appellant): Argued that the plain language of the insurance policy entitled her to UM benefits for her NIED claim. Alternatively, she contended that the policy was ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of coverage (paras 6-7).
- Plaintiff (Appellee): Asserted that the policy unambiguously limited UM coverage to bodily injuries sustained by an insured person and excluded emotional injuries such as NIED. The Plaintiff also argued that the Defendant’s sister was not an insured person under the policy (paras 6-7).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant was entitled to underinsured motorist (UM) benefits under the terms of the Allstate insurance policy for her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
- Whether the insurance policy was ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of coverage.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that UM coverage was not available under the terms of the insurance policy (para 1).
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Wechsler and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Allstate insurance policy unambiguously limited UM coverage to bodily injuries sustained by an insured person. The policy defined "bodily injury" as "bodily injury, sickness, disease or death," which the Court interpreted to exclude emotional injuries such as NIED, consistent with prior case law (paras 8-10).
The Defendant’s sister, who suffered the fatal accident, was not an insured person under the policy. Therefore, the Defendant could not base her claim for UM benefits on her sister’s bodily injury. The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the policy language was ambiguous, finding that the provisions, when read together, clearly required the insured person to suffer a bodily injury to trigger coverage (paras 11-14).
The Court also distinguished the present case from prior decisions, such as Gonzales v. Allstate Insurance Co. and Economy Preferred Insurance Co. v. Jia, which similarly held that emotional injuries unaccompanied by physical manifestations do not qualify as bodily injuries under similar policy language. The Defendant’s reliance on factual distinctions in Jia was deemed irrelevant to the dispositive legal issue (paras 15-18).
The Court concluded that the Defendant failed to establish that she suffered an independent bodily injury as required by the policy and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Allstate (paras 19-20).