Rodriguez v. Windsor Ins. Co.

39 Citing cases

  1. Montano v. Allstate Indem. Co.

    135 N.M. 681 (N.M. 2004)   Cited 70 times
    Applying test set out in Rodriguez

    In this case we decline Plaintiff's invitation to declare all anti-stacking provisions void as against public policy. However, to further the important principles previously described, and influenced by NMSA 1978, § 66-5-301(A) and (C) (1983), we modify Rodriguez v. Windsor Insurance Co., 118 N.M. 127, 879 P.2d 759 (1994) and Lopez v. Foundation Reserve Insurance Co., 98 N.M. 166, 646 P.2d 1230 (1982), and hold that insurance companies must obtain written rejections of stacking in order to limit their liability. Such a modification to our judicially-created stacking doctrine will ensure that the insured's reasonable expectations are met and that an insured gets what he or she pays for and no more. Such a change should also, we hope, end the seemingly constant litigation in this area of law. Because, however, we recognize that this represents a new direction in our stacking jurisprudence, we will resolve the stacking question in this case under Rodriguez, which we read to require a plain and affirmative declaration that the amount charged represents a single premium for a single amount of coverage.

  2. Montano v. Allstate Indem. Co.

    133 N.M. 696 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 5 times

    See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Indep. Appliance Refrigeration Serv., Inc., No. CIV 00-382 LCS/KBM (D.N.M. Jan. 31, 2001) (unpublished mem. opinion and order). Judge Smith found that Allstate Insurance "took the necessary steps set forth in Rodriguez [ v. Windsor Ins. Co., 118 N.M. 127, 879 P.2d 759 (1994)], in order to effectuate an anti-stacking policy." Specifically, Judge Smith stated:

  3. Fernandez v. Safeco Insu. Co. of America

    No. CIV 10-860 BB/RHS (D.N.M. Nov. 21, 2011)

    Therefore, when an insured with a multi-vehicle policy is involved in an accident with an uninsured or under-insured driver, courts have been confronted with the issue of whether, in effect, the insured has purchased a UM/UIM policy for each owned vehicle. See Rodriguez v. Windsor Ins. Co., 879 P.2d 759, 761 (N.M. 1994). If so, or if the policy is ambiguous as to whether this is so, the insured will be allowed to add together, or stack, the limits of UM/UIM coverage.

  4. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Independent Appliance

    278 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 2002)   Cited 2 times

    Meister contends that under New Mexico law, his personal auto insurance policy was ambiguous on the extent of stacking allowed. He depends heavily on Rodriguez v. Windsor Insurance Co., 118 N.M. 127, 879 P.2d 759 (1994). In Rodriguez, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that, given the strong judicial policy favoring stacking, insurers could only prohibit the practice with a policy containing a " truly unambiguous antistacking clause."

  5. Garcia v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.

    541 P.3d 162 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023)

    [5] {8} Under a line of authority dating back more than forty years, our Supreme Court has consistently- held that where an insurance company charges a separate UM/UIM premium for each vehicle under a multi-vehicle policy, "it is only fair that the insured be permitted to stack the coverages for which he has paid." Lopez, 1982-NMSC-034, ¶ 18, 98 N.M. 166, 646 P.2d 1230; accord Jimenez v. Found. Rsrv. Ins. Co., 1988-NMSC-052, ¶ 11, 107 N.M. 322, 757 P.2d 792 (noting that "case law in this jurisdiction repeatedly has stated the public policy [that] allows uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to be stacked when separate premiums are paid for additional coverage"); Rodriguez v. Windsor Ins. Co., 1994-NMSC-075, ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 127, 879 P.2d 759 ("We have permitted stacking of uninsured motorist coverages when separate premiums have been paid on the rationale that separate premiums for separate coverages entitle the insured to the benefit of what he or she has paid for," (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Montano, 2004-NMSC-020, ¶ 23, 135 N.M. 681, 92 P.3d 1255 ("[W]hen multiple premiums are charged for UM coverage on multiple cars, even in the face of a truly unambiguous limitation-of-liability clause, stacking -will be required."); see also Wilkeson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-077, ¶ 9, 329 P.3d 749 (observing that our Supreme Court "has consistently, upheld the availability of stacking, as against policy language excluding it, as a matter of public policy when the insured has paid multiple premiums"). Simply put, an insured is entitled to the number of coverages for which he or she pays a premium.

  6. Garcia v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.

    541 P.3d 162 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023)

    {8} Under a line of authority dating back more than forty years, our Supreme Court has consistently held that where an insurance company charges a separate UM/UIM premium for each vehicle under a multi-vehicle policy, "it is only fair that the insured be permitted to stack the coverages for which he has paid." Lopez , 1982-NMSC-034, ¶ 18, 98 N.M. 166, 646 P.2d 1230 ; accord Jimenez v. Found. Rsrv. Ins. Co. , 1988-NMSC-052, ¶ 11, 107 N.M. 322, 757 P.2d 792 (noting that "case law in this jurisdiction repeatedly has stated the public policy [that] allows uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to be stacked when separate premiums are paid for additional coverage"); Rodriguez v. Windsor Ins. Co. , 1994-NMSC-075, ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 127, 879 P.2d 759 ("We have permitted stacking of uninsured motorist coverages when separate premiums have been paid on the rationale that separate premiums for separate coverages entitle the insured to the benefit of what he or she has paid for." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted));

  7. Jensen v. Depositors Ins. Co.

    1:17-cv-00743-LF-KBM (D.N.M. May. 29, 2024)

    Under New Mexico caselaw, an insurer may be liable for stacked UMBI coverage despite contractual language to the contrary because the insured: (1) was charged multiple premiums for UMBI coverages on multiple vehicles or could reasonably believe that they were charged multiple premiums, see Rodriguez v. Windsor Ins. Co., 1994-NMSC-075, ¶¶ 12-16, 879 P.2d 759, 762-63, or (2) was charged only a single premium for UMBI coverage on multiple vehicles, but could have a reasonable expectation of stacked coverage because of an ambiguity in the antistacking provision of the insurance policy at issue, see generally Montano, 2004-NMSC-020, 92 P.3d 1255. Because “anti-stacking clauses are almost inherently ambiguous,” an insurer will be liable for stacked UMBI coverage unless it “obtain[s] written rejections of stacking.” Id. ¶¶ 21, 28, 92 P.3d at 1261, 1263.

  8. Rehders v. Allstate Insurance Co.

    139 N.M. 536 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 21 times
    Finding that "judgment against an insured is appropriate as a matter of law when the insured's expectations do not extend to the facts of the case, or when the insured's expectations conflict with the clear language of the policy itself"

    Our past cases have evolved a strong judicial policy, rooted in this state's uninsured motorists insurance statute (NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-301[1983]), favoring stacking in order that a person injured by an uninsured . . . motorist may receive compensation for his or her damages to the extent of the insurance purchased for his or her protection. Rodriguez v. Windsor Ins. Co., 118 N.M. 127, 127, 879 P.2d 759, 759 (1994), modified in other respects by Montano, 2004-NMSC-020, ¶ 1, 135 N.M. 681, 92 P.3d 1255. The public policy in support of stacking in New Mexico "has always been tied to the notion that it is unfair not to allow stacking when multiple premiums are paid or when the policy is otherwise ambiguous."

  9. Wilsford v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz.

    CV 21-0428 JHR/SMV (D.N.M. May. 5, 2022)

    Ambiguous policies “are construed against the insurer.” See Rodriguez v. Windsor Ins. Co., 118 N.M. 127, 879 P.2d 759, 763 (1994), modified, Montano v. Allstate Indem. Co., 135 N.M. 681, 92 P.3d 1255, 1256 (2004). As a result, “UM/UIM coverage [is] the default when the insured has not exercised the right to reject.”

  10. Hawley v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

    CV 18-0489 JHR/SCY (D.N.M. Sep. 30, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Ambiguities in UM/UIM policy provisions are construed by the court against the insurer and in favor of the reasonable expectations of the insured. Rodriguez v. Windsor, 1994-NMSC-075, ¶ 12, 118 N.M. 127, 130, 879 P.2d 759, 762; see also Lopez v. Foundation Reserve Inx. Co., Inc., 1982-NMSC-034, ¶ 16, 98 N.M. 166, 170, 646 P.2d 1230, 1230 ("Another reason for intra-policy stacking is that if fulfills the reasonable expectations of the insured." (citations omitted)).