Nakashima v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

16 Citing cases

  1. Nellis v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona

    2012 NMCA 20 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that extrinsic evidence is used "to help determine the level and scope of integration of the contract"

    After certifying the case as a class action, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the Class on the merits of its breach of contract claim. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona (Farmers) asked the district court to reconsider its decision, relying on Nakashima v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 2007–NMCA–027, 141 N.M. 239, 153 P.3d 664, an opinion issued by this Court after the district court entered its summary judgment in this case. The district court denied Farmers' motion.

  2. In re Ins. Installment Fee Cases

    211 Cal.App.4th 1395 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 80 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Explaining split

    ( Auto Club, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1235–1237, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 421; Troyk, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1328-1329, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 589.) In Nakashima v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (N.M.App.2007) 141 N.M. 239, 153 P.3d 664 ( Nakashima ) a New Mexico appellate court deciding the same issue (whether the installment fee paid under State Farm's SFPP is additional premium) similarly concluded that the installment fee is not premium but rather is consideration for a benefit separate from the insurance coverage provided in exchange for premium payment. The Nakashima court stated: “The payment plan agreement, or second contract, constituted a separate agreement between the parties with respect to an alternative way to pay the policy premium.

  3. Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 1305 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 344 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendant's action was sufficient for standing

    Contrary to Farmers' assertion, our analysis in Auto Club regarding interest charged for the time value of money to compensate for an insurer's lost investment income does not apply with equal force to the service charges imposed by FIE in this case for the administrative services of billing and collecting the premiums for the class members' one-month term policies. Similarly, we conclude the cases Farmers cite from other jurisdictions are also factually inapposite and do not support their position. (See, e.g., Blanchard v. Allstate Ins. Co. (La.Ct.App. 2000) 774 So.2d 1002; Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (La.Ct.App. 2004) 885 So.2d 1248; Nakashima v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Ct.App. 2007) 2007 NMCA 27 [ 141 N.M. 239, 153 P.3d 664].) Unlike the instant case, all of those cases involved true installment payments of premium.

  4. Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.

    168 Cal.App.4th 1337 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    Similarly, we conclude the cases Farmers cite from other jurisdictions are also factually inapposite and do not support their position. (See, e.g., Blanchard v. Allstate Ins. Co. (La.Ct.App. 2000) 774 So.2d 1002; Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (La.Ct.App. 2004) 885 So.2d 1248; Nakashima v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Ct.App. 2007) 2007 NMCA 27 [ 141 N.M. 239, 153 P.3d 664].) Unlike the instant case, all of those cases involved true installment payments of premium.

  5. Suski v. Coinbase, Inc.

    55 F.4th 1227 (9th Cir. 2022)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Suski v. Coinbase, Inc., 55 F.4th 1227 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit confronted an analogous, albeit not identical, issue.

    See In re Ins. Installment Fee Cases , 211 Cal.App.4th 1395, 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 618, 632 (2012) (" ‘[A]n integration clause only covers antecedent and contemporaneous agreements; it does not foreclose the possibility of future agreements.’ " (quoting Nakashima v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 141 N.M. 239, 153 P. 3d 664, 668 (App. 2007) )).

  6. Christy v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am.

    810 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2016)   Cited 35 times
    Assessing whether insurance renewal contract imposed affirmative duty upon insured to inform insurer about changes in business form

    Nothing in the express language of the provision imposes any obligation on either Mr. Christy or Travelers. Rather, the provision is a standard integration clause, which merges any prior or contemporaneous agreements into the final written contract. See Nakashima v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 141 N.M. 239, 153 P.3d 664, 668 (App.2007); see also 2 David Frisch, Lawrence's Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code § 2–202:48 (3d ed.) (“An integration clause is indicative that the parties intended the writing to be the exclusive statement of the parties' agreement, and will usually be given that effect.”). The sole and unambiguous effect of this provision is to limit the parties' agreement to the final written contract.

  7. Beltz v. Erie Indem. Co.

    279 F. Supp. 3d 569 (W.D. Pa. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    In Beltz v. Erie Indem. Co., 279 F. Supp. 3d 569 (W.D. Pa. 2017), aff'd, 733 Fed. Appx. 595 (3d Cir. 2018) (unpublished), reh'g denied (June 14, 2018) ("Beltz II"), a putative class of subscribers, represented by the same counsel that represents Ritz here, commenced a class action against Indemnity and its Board for allegedly breaching its fiduciary duties for misappropriating service charges and additional fees under the Subscriber's Agreement's provision that Indemnity could only withhold 25% of the premiums for its Management Fee.

    The Court held that summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was not proper because installment payment fees are not premiums, as they "are not charged in connection with the procurement of insurance," but rather "are associated with the privilege of paying a premium in installments and are not for the actual purchase of insurance itself." Id. at 149 (quoting Nakashima v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. , 141 N.M. 239, 153 P.3d 664 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) ). Thus, the court recognized that "insureds can enter into separate enforceable agreements for payment of premiums in a mode other than in a lump sum."

  8. Happy Camper Mgmt., LLC v. Ament

    Civil No. 15-927 WJ/GBW (D.N.M. Sep. 27, 2016)

    In other words, Plaintiff agreed to accept less money than it was entitled to receive under the promissory notes and forego pursuing any claims it may otherwise have against Defendants in exchange for receiving the negotiated amount of funds under the settlement agreement. See Nakashima v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 2007-NMCA-027, ¶13, 141 N.M. 239, 153 P.3d 664. (finding adequate consideration to support an insurance premium payment plan contract where the insurer "gave up its right to obtain the payment of premium in a lump sum, whereas Plaintiff obtained the right to pay her premium in installments in exchange for a fee.").

  9. Vilar v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC

    No. CIV 14-0226 JB/KBM (D.N.M. Dec. 17, 2014)   Cited 10 times

    Smoot v. Physicians Life Ins. Co., 2004-NMCA-027, ¶ 15. Finally, in Nakashima v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2007-NMCA-027, 153 P.3d 664 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007), the plaintiff -- Laura Nakashima -- alleged that her insurance company -- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. -- violated the UPA by failing to disclose an additional charge for paying her insurance premiums in monthly installments. See 2007-NMCA-027, ¶ 4. Although the information was not included in her monthly premium form, it was clearly stated in the form that she signed when she enrolled in the monthly payment plan.

  10. Baldwin v. Hobbs Municipal Schools

    No. CIV 08-149 BB/WPL (D.N.M. Sep. 8, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    NMSA § 37-1-23 (granting governmental entities immunity from actions based on contract, except for actions based on a valid written contract). Second, these promises were not made as part of the normal process of entering into teaching contracts, but were essentially side agreements (if "agreements" at all) between the School and Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not, however, alleged that she provided additional consideration to the School for these extra promises. It is black-letter law that a valid contract must be supported by valuable consideration, the existence of which has not been alleged in the amended complaint. Nakashima v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 153 P.3d 664, 668 (N.M. App. 2007). Finally, the promises upon which Plaintiff relies are quite different from the usual terms and conditions of a teacher's employment contract such as salary and term of employment. New Mexico's appellate courts have expressed a strong preference for limiting breach-of-employment-contract cases to situations in which a party has been denied some type of concrete benefit provided by the employment contract.