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

• An employee of Taos County was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a vehicle belonging to the County. The employee was not at fault and received a settlement from the insurance policy of the other vehicle's driver and workers' compensation benefits. The employee then sought uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage from the County's insurance, which was provided through a coverage agreement with the New Mexico Association of Counties. This agreement did not include UM/UIM coverage (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County, Sam B. Sanchez, District Judge: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, holding that the County was not obligated to purchase UM/UIM coverage to compensate the Plaintiff (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that New Mexico law requires insurance providers to offer UM/UIM coverage in all automobile insurance policies unless the insured rejects such coverage. Contended that the County had such coverage through its agreement with the Association of Counties because it did not reject UM/UIM coverage (paras 4, 6).
• Defendants: Argued that the County did not have UM/UIM insurance and that the Association of Counties was immune from suit. Contended that the County was neither obligated to purchase nor could it purchase UM/UIM coverage to compensate the Plaintiff (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the requirements of NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-301(A), pertaining to uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, apply to a group of counties that pool their financial resources to satisfy claims against the individual counties of the group (para 1).
• Whether the Association of Counties is obligated to offer UM/UIM coverage to the County and, if so, whether the County waived UM/UIM coverage (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, holding that Section 66-5-301(A) does not apply to the Association of Counties and, therefore, does not require the Association of Counties to provide UM/UIM coverage to the County (para 18).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The Court conducted a de novo review and focused on legislative intent, examining the relevant statutes and their purposes. It concluded that the statutes permitting counties to pool their self-insurance reserves exempt such arrangements from state laws regulating insurance and insurance companies. The Court found that the Association of Counties, through its pooled reserves, does not have the obligation to provide UM/UIM coverage to its member counties. This conclusion was supported by the legislative intent evident in the statutes, the exemption of political subdivisions from the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, and the specific provisions of the insurance pooling statutes. The Court also addressed and rejected the Plaintiff's public policy argument, noting that the Legislature had set forth countervailing public policy with respect to governmental entities (paras 5-17).