AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 Appellant, a school bus driver employed by Saavedra School Bus Co., was involved in an accident on May 23, 1988, when her bus was struck by an underinsured third-party driver. At the time, Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) acted as a self-insurer and carried an excess liability policy with International Surplus Lines Insurance Company (ISLIC), which excluded uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. Saavedra did not carry UM/UIM coverage for its employees but had a liability policy with General Accident Insurance Company of America (General) that did not extend UM/UIM coverage to the Appellant (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of ISLIC, General, and APS, dismissing the Appellant's claims for UM/UIM coverage and violations of the Insurance Code.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that ISLIC's excess liability policy, General's liability policy, and APS's self-insurance should provide UM/UIM coverage under New Mexico law. Claimed APS was contractually obligated to provide such coverage for Saavedra's employees and that she was a third-party beneficiary of the APS-Saavedra contract (paras 4-5, 15-17).
• ISLIC: Asserted that its excess liability policy did not fall under the statutory requirement to provide UM/UIM coverage and that APS had rejected such coverage (paras 6-7, 18).
• General: Contended that its policy did not provide UM/UIM coverage for Saavedra's buses or employees and that the Appellant was not an insured under the policy (paras 10-14).
• APS: Maintained that it was not obligated to provide UM/UIM coverage for Saavedra or its employees under its contract or New Mexico law and that Saavedra was an independent contractor (paras 18-22).

Legal Issues

• Was ISLIC's excess liability policy required to provide UM/UIM coverage under New Mexico law?
• Did General's liability policy provide UM/UIM coverage for the Appellant?
• Was APS obligated to provide UM/UIM coverage for Saavedra's employees under its self-insurance or contract with Saavedra?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of ISLIC, General, and APS, dismissing the Appellant's claims (para 25).

Reasons

Per Donnelly J. (Alarid J. concurring):

• ISLIC's Policy: The Court held that ISLIC's excess liability policy was not subject to the statutory requirement to provide UM/UIM coverage under Section 66-5-301(A) because it was an excess policy, not a primary automobile liability policy. The Court followed the majority view in other jurisdictions that excess policies are not required to include UM/UIM coverage (paras 6-9).
• General's Policy: The Court found that the General policy did not provide UM/UIM coverage for Saavedra's buses or employees. The Appellant was neither a named insured nor a Class II insured under the policy, and the policy expressly excluded coverage for employees injured in the course of employment (paras 10-14).
• APS's Obligations: The Court determined that APS was not required to provide UM/UIM coverage for Saavedra or its employees under its self-insurance or contract. The contract only required APS to carry liability insurance, and there was no evidence that APS agreed to provide UM/UIM coverage. The Appellant's claim of being a third-party beneficiary was unsupported by evidence (paras 15-23).

Per Hartz J. (Specially concurring):

• Hartz J. agreed with the majority's conclusions but emphasized that APS's rejection of UM/UIM coverage under ISLIC's policy was valid and binding. He also noted that General's policy did not provide liability coverage for the bus involved in the accident, making the UM/UIM statute inapplicable. Finally, he concurred that APS had no statutory or contractual obligation to provide UM/UIM coverage for Saavedra's employees (paras 27-30).