The plaintiff’s car had allegedly been rear-ended. Her complaint alleged that she had been stopped in traffic when a vehicle struck her vehicle from behind, and that she sustained serious personal injuries as a result. She sought to recoup damages for medical bills, enduring pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of household services.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff could not recover from the owner of the car that had rear-ended her car. This was because it was not the owner who was driving the car at the time of the accident. The owner’s mother was driving, and she allegedly had her license revoked prior to the accident for driving under the influence of alcohol and did not have liability insurance. The plaintiff therefore decided to pursue a recovery from her own automobile insurer, under the uninsured motorist coverage provisions of the insurance policy.

The plaintiff’s insurance company did not make a settlement offer that was acceptable. It made an offer for less than the full amount of the medical bills, taking the position that the plaintiff had reached the maximum medical improvement that she would achieve some two months after the accident. The plaintiff was of the view this was inadequate because the insurance company was ignoring her traumatic brain injury and much of her treatment, and did not address her punitive damages claims against the driver and owner of the car that rear-ended her car.

The plaintiff sued her insurance company and the insurance company responded with a motion to bifurcate her insurance bad faith claims from her contract claims for insurance coverage. The insurance company wished to have the plaintiff proceed in two phases. In the first phase she would be called upon to prove negligence to the jury. If she succeeded, she could pursue her claim against the defendant insurance company for failing to pay out on uninsured motorist coverage.

The court rejected the insurance company’s proposed pretrial bifurcation. The court reasoned that because the tortfeasor was completely uninsured the insurance company could not credibly dispute that it was under an obligation to pay the plaintiff some amount of money. Rather, the court was of the view that the dispute in the case was over how much the insurance company must pay, which in the court’s assessment was not so distinct an issue from whether the insurance company’s pre-litigation settlement offers were reasonable. In addition to denying the insurance company’s motion to bifurcate the claims, the court also denied bifurcated discovery. The court balanced the parties rights by leaving open the possibility of deciding at a later pretrial status conference that the plaintiff’s claims could be tried in multiple phases or presented to separate juries.

If you, a family member, or other loved one has been injured in an New Mexico car accident, you may be entitled by law to receive a financial recovery. Recovering personal injury damages can help people pay out-of-pocket costs including lost wages and medical bills. Sometimes a recovery can be complicated by the steps taken by insurance companies. We are here to help. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

In the next year, the personal representative for the woman’s estate sent a demand letter to the deceased’s automobile insurer, seeking a recovery under the underinsured motorist coverage provisions.

The insurance company refused to pay out. It took the position that the personal representative of the estate of the woman who had been run over by the Deputy could not achieve a recovery under the insurance policy because the estate would be able to recover $400,000, the maximum allowed under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, from the Sheriff’s Office. The insurance company’s position was that such a recovery would reduce to less than zero the amount recoverable under the underinsured motorist provision of the automobile insurance policy, which limited recovery to $250,000 less any amount paid by the individual or organization responsible for the accident.

In support of its position, the insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to provide coverage under the insurance policy. The insurance company then filed a summary judgment motion with the district court, taking the position that the undisputed facts entitled it to a judgment as a matter of law.

The Judge presiding over the motion noted that the insurance company did not comply with Local Rule 7.1(a), which requires that a movant “determine whether a motion is opposed, and a motion that omits recitation of a good-faith request for concurrence may be summarily denied.” The Judge then took the unusual step of admonishing the insurance company’s counsel to comply with the rule with respect to future filings of motions, advising that failure to comply with the rule would result in summary denials of motions. Notwithstanding its concerns over the conduct of counsel for the insurance company, the court reached the merits of the insurance company’s motion.

The court reasoned that there was not undisputed evidence in the record before the court of availability of $400,000 in coverage from the Sheriff’s Office. Therefore, the court reasoned, the insurance company was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the $250,000 in coverage under the deceased’s insurance policy coverage was completely offset. Accordingly, the court denied the insurance company summary judgment in the declaratory judgment action.

If you, a family member, or other loved one has been injured in an New Mexico car accident, you may be entitled by law to receive a financial recovery. Recovering personal injury damages can help people pay out-of-pocket costs including lost wages and medical bills. You should not have to navigate the legal process alone. We are here to help. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

Following those tragic events, the husband and the estate of his wife filed a state court complaint against the insurance company and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death and loss of consortium in the First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The insurance company then sought a declaratory judgment from a federal court, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, providing that the insurance company was not obligated to defend the insured property owners in the state court case or indemnify them.

The insurance company’s position was that carbon monoxide poisoning fell within under the insurance policy’s pollutants and contaminants exclusion and the insurance policy’s expected or intended act or omission exclusion.

The property owners responded by filing a motion to dismiss or stay the insurance company’s declaratory judgment action. They argued insurance coverage should be determined in the primary action pending in state court, and requested that the federal court abstain from deciding the matter in order to allow the state court to proceed.

The federal court considered a few factors. First the court considered whether a declaratory judgment could settle the controversy, concluding that it could after the parties presented more information. This weighed in favor of deciding the coverage dispute. Next the court considered whether its involvement would add to the state court action, concluding not because the state court could decide the dispute just as well. After considering this factor, the court moved on to whether the insurance company was engaged in procedural fencing or other gamesmanship. The court did not see indications of this in the limited record before the court and declined to speculate, concluding that this factor did not weigh for or against deciding the parties’ insurance coverage dispute. Next the court considered whether exercising jurisdiction would cause friction between state and federal courts or encroach on the exercise of jurisdiction by state courts. The court took a practical approach, looking to the existence of a pending state court action raising identical issues and concluding this factor cut against the exercise of federal court jurisdiction. Finally the court considered whether there was an alternative remedy that was more effective, and decided that it was appropriate for the insurance coverage dispute to proceed in state court and be stayed in federal court.

If you, a family member, or other loved one has been injured in an accident, you may be entitled by law to receive a financial recovery. Recoveries of personal injury damages can help people and their families pay out-of-pocket costs including lost wages and medical bills. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or contact attorney Matthew Vance online.

The accident underlying the plaintiff’s personal injury suit occurred on westbound Interstate 40 in McKinley County, New Mexico. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, traffic was backed up at the time of the accident because the road was under construction. The complaint further alleges that a truck driver was driving on cruise control at a speed of 66 miles per hour. As the driver approached a mile marker, he was allegedly looking down. When the truck he was driving was a second away from a pickup truck, the driver of the pickup truck looked up. Tragically, it was too late to stop the collision, which allegedly resulted in a fire and chain reaction of accidents on the interstate.

Among those sustaining serious personal injuries was the plaintiff, who was en route to California at the time, according to the complaint he filed in New Mexico’s 11th Judicial District Court against the truck driver, the trucking company that employed the driver and corporate affiliates of the trucking company. The trucking company removed the complaint from the state court in which it had been filed to federal court.

After the complaint was removed, an insurance company sought to intervene. In support of the relief requested, the insurance company asserted that it had issued a workers’ compensation policy to the plaintiff’s employer, that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was acting in the course and scope of his employment, and that the insurance company had paid the plaintiff benefits and might be obligated to pay out more. The insurance company argued it should be allowed to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 because it was subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff against the defendants and was therefore entitled to recover sums the insurance company had paid the plaintiff or would be obligated to pay him in the future.

The court conducted a choice of law analysis and determined that New Mexico law governed. The court then explained that, under New Mexico law, a workers’ compensation insurer does not have a direct right of subrogation against third party tortfeasors. Only once the injured person recovers money by verdict or settlement can the insurer try to seek reimbursement. The court sided with the plaintiff, reasoning he should be able to prosecute his complaint “without interference” from the insurance company. The court ruled, in the alternative, that the insurance company’s motion to intervene should be denied because it had not addressed why its interest was not adequately represented by the existing parties to the lawsuit or how its interest would be impaired if intervention is not allowed.

If you or a loved one has been injured by the actions of third parties, or their failure to take action, there may be grounds for a damages award. An award of monetary damages can help people cover out-of-pocket costs, including medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Insurance companies are among third parties that may be responsible for paying costs resulting from an accident, depending on the circumstances. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued in ways that maximize your recovery, contact New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We can provide you with a free consultation. To contact Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., please call (505) 242-6267 or contact attorney Matthew Vance online.

Underlying the dispute was a hit and run accident. Allegedly a person was injured when the vehicle he was driving was struck by a pick up truck that did not stop at a stop sign. The driver of the pick up truck drove off after the accident. The injured person whose vehicle had been struck in the hit and run accident sought to recover money from the insurance company that insured his vehicle, based on uninsured motorist coverage. The insurance company refused to pay out after being presented with a police report, medical records and bills. The injured person, through counsel, filed a case against the insurance company in Bernalillo County.

The insurance company, via its counsel, removed the case the plaintiff had filed in state court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The removal papers included an affidavit from counsel observing that, in his experience, the type of action at issue involves more than $75,000. The plaintiff responded with a motion to remand the case to state court on the basis that the amount in controversy was less than $75,000.

The parties’ dispute was limited to whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. As the District Court explained, its jurisdiction could be premised on diversity of citizenship if the amount in controversy was over $75,000, pursuant to section 1332 of the U.S. Code. The District Court further explained that the burden of proof was on the insurance company to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy may exceed $75,000. The District Court then turned to the record before it. The District Court faulted the insurance company for not including in the record information concerning the plaintiff’s injuries or medical costs, after the insurance company had been provided medical records and medical bills when the plaintiff pursued an insurance coverage claim.

The District Court rejected the insurance company’s argument that the amount in controversy could potentially be increased by an award of treble or punitive damages or attorney fees because the record lacked the more basic information about the extent of personal injury damages, including medical damages. Most helpful to the plaintiff analytically was that the plaintiff had a maximum of $75,000 in coverage available to cover an accident caused by an uninsured motorist and stipulated, after the insurance company removed the case, that the amount at issue was less than $75,000. While these facts were not in and of themselves conclusive, they suggested that less than $75,000 was in controversy and that the case should be sent back to state court for adjudication. Based on the record before it the District Court was satisfied that the case should be remanded to state court, and granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

If you or a loved one was injured in an accident, there may be grounds for an award of damages from parties including insurance companies. An award of monetary damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by accidents. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize recoveries, call New Mexico car accident lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The injured parties sued their neighbors in New Mexico state court, and the neighbors’ insurance company defended the neighbors under a homeowner’s insurance policy. The insurance company then initiated proceedings in New Mexico federal court, seeking a declaration that it was not required to defend or indemnify its insureds in that suit, a dog bite case.

To resolve the dispute, the federal court reviewed the terms of the insurance policy at issue and the parties’ competing positions on availability of coverage.

The court focused on the provisions of the insurance policy concerning coverage for bodily injury claims, which stated: “Coverage F-Premises liability applies to bodily injury and property damage only if the bodily injury or property damage occurs on your premises and during the policy period shown on the Declarations page.” The court observed that the parties agreed that the dog attack and resulting bodily injuries did not occur on the premises of the insured homeowners. The attack occurred miles away, off of the premises.

The insured homeowners argued unsuccessfully that the allegedly negligent act of letting their dogs loose occurred on their premises and, therefore, they should receive coverage under their homeowner’s policy. The court rejected this position as being contradictory to the express language of the homeowner’s insurance policy at issue, which provided coverage for third-party bodily injury, “only if the bodily injury or property damage occurs on your premises and during the policy period shown on the Declarations page.”

The insured homeowners also argued that their homeowner’s insurance policy was ambiguous and that ambiguities should be construed against their insurance company. The court faulted the homeowners for not explaining how the policy language was ambiguous and rejected this argument. The court also rejected the insured homeowners’ argument that they were covered because they believed they were purchasing full coverage and were not advised of an exclusion for dog bites occurring off of the premises by the insurance agent.

The court was of the view that the homeowner’s policy at issue was clear and unambiguous and did not provide coverage for injuries occurring off premises. Accordingly the court concluded that the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify the homeowners in connection with the state court lawsuit brought by their neighbors.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, or has incurred property damage due to the fault of a third party, there may be grounds for a recovery of monetary damages. Collecting monetary damages can help people with out-of-pocket costs, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued in ways that maximize your recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The parties agreed that the insurance policy had a limit of $100,000 per person and $200,000 per accident. The insurance company argued that even though the wife of the deceased motorcyclist asserted claims on his behalf as well as on her own behalf for loss of consortium, there was a physical injury to one party only and the so the per person limit applied. The wife of the deceased motorcyclist asserted in response that there were two bodily injuries, hers and her husband’s, so the higher per accident insurance policy limit of $200,000 applied.

To resolve the dispute over the extent of coverage under the insurance policy the district court applied New Mexico law, which resolves disputes over insurance policies by interpreting their provisions in accordance with the same principles that govern the interpretation of contracts. The court explained that, under the controlling law, when policy language is clear and unambiguous, courts must give the contractual language effect and enforce the insurance policy as written.

The insurance policy defined “Bodily Injury” to mean bodily harm, sickness, disease or death. The policy also stated: “Bodily Injury” does not include mental injuries such as emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, mental distress or any similar injury unless it arises out of physical injury to some person.” The insurance company stressed that the wife’s injuries were derivative of her husband’s, rather than separate. The court looked to the policy language and observed that the insurance company could have effectuated its stated intent by defining bodily injury to include no mental injuries or only mental injuries suffered by the “same” person physically injured, as opposed to “some” person. Or, the court observed, the insurance company could have clarified that damages sustained by anyone else as a result of a physical injury are part of the “each person” coverage. The court agreed with the wife of the deceased motorcyclist with respect to her argument, which the court characterized as straightforward, that her loss of consortium claim was a “mental injury” that “arises out of physical injury to some person,” i.e. the deceased motorcyclist. Concluding that two people suffered bodily injury in the accident under the terms of the driver’s insurance policy, the court ruled that the per occurrence limit of $200,000 applied.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, or if you have lost a loved one in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. An award of monetary damages can help people with out-of-pocket costs, including medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Insurance companies are among third parties that may be responsible for paying costs resulting from an accident, depending on the circumstances. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued in ways that maximize your recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The federal court deciding the motion to dismiss determined that it was tasked with predicting how New Mexico’s Supreme Court would decide the dispute under New Mexico’s Uninsured Motorist Act. As a decision had not yet been made on the issues at that level, the federal court looked to legislative intent and rulings by other courts. It concluded that the legislative intent was to protect the public from culpable underinsured motorists and that the phrases “injury to or destruction of property” and “property damage” do not ordinarily include theft.

The court observed that the insured plaintiff was correct that the New Mexico Supreme Court had liberally construed New Mexico law in favor of insureds. The court rejected the insured’s position he was covered based on concerns the court expressed, including that accepting the position would in effect add a requirement that the New Mexico legislature could have but purportedly had not enacted – that every automobile liability insurance policy in New Mexico provide coverage for auto theft.
In support of its ruling in favor of the insurance company defendant denying coverage, the court also observed that New Mexico limited uninsured motorist coverage by defining an uninsured motorist as an operator of a motor vehicle whose liability at the time of the accident is less than the liability limits under the insured’s uninsured motorist coverage. The court reasoned that the theft giving rise to the insured’s claim was not an accident with the operator of a motor vehicle, and was therefore outside of the scope of coverage.

The court rejected a case presented by the insured that had been decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal in the context of losses sustained by an insured jewelry store. The Florida court had reasoned that property is damaged to the extent its market value is diminished and when property is stolen its market value to the person who lawfully possessed it is totally diminished, therefore theft of personal property is property damage unless contrary intent is clearly expressed.

Ultimately the New Mexico federal court ruled that the defendant insurance company had no contractual duty to cover the loss incurred by the insured plaintiff and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident or incurred property damage due to acts or omissions of third parties, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. An award of monetary damages can help people with out of pocket costs including medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Insurance companies are among third parties that may be responsible for paying costs, depending on the circumstances. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The case arose after an insurance company denial of coverage. A woman was involved in a New Mexico motor vehicle accident with an unknown driver, following which she made a claim with her insurance company for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The insurance company denied coverage, taking the position that its insured was 100% at fault for the accident. The insured driver then sued for UM benefits and punitive damages and a jury found the UM driver 100% at fault and awarded the insured driver damages.

Thereafter the plaintiff sued her insurance company for breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, and unfair practices for the insurance company’s failure to pay the claim, including paying the jury verdict, and for its handling of the claim through the underlying lawsuit. The insurance company paid the jury verdict and sought a protective order with respect to discovery sought by the plaintiff.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Rule 26(b)(1) allows discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case. . . .” Rule 26(c)(1) goes on to provide, however, that a court may “for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including “forbidding the disclosure or discovery” or “forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.” In this case the court agreed with the insurance company that conduct of its adjusters and employees during the underlying litigation was not relevant to whether the insurance company acted in bad faith in refusing to cover the plaintiff’s claim. Alternatively, the court found that documents and communications of the insurance company following denial of coverage were protected from discovery because of the work product doctrine, which protects from disclosure materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. This doctrine had not precluded discovery from the insurance company adjusters who initially handled the plaintiff’s claim and made a liability determination, who had been deposed at the point the insurance company sought a protective order.

Next the court protected from discovery written reports prepared by counsel to the insurance company during the underlying litigation. The plaintiff had argued that the insurance company’s counsel had been working as a claims adjuster so the attorney-client privilege did not apply. The court differentiated the situation before it from ones cited by the plaintiff, in which counsel acted in the ordinary course of business as a claims adjuster. In this case the court concluded that counsel’s report had been prepared following the insurance company’s denial of coverage and in anticipation of litigation and was, therefore, protected from discovery. The court also denied the plaintiff discovery of a PowerPoint presentation she asserted the defendant insurance company used to train claim handlers. The plaintiff had argued that the presentation was discoverable because it was not specific to a claim but rather was a general training for litigation adjusters. The court concluded that the presentations were still protected by the attorney-client privilege because they facilitated counsel’s provision of legal advice. The court asked for these materials to be submitted for in camera review to ensure they did not contain other information, not protected by privilege, such as information concerning business matters or management decisions.

If you or a loved one has suffered personal injuries following a car accident, there may be grounds for recovery. Insurance companies are among the parties that may be responsible for paying for the costs of an accident. They are sophisticated litigants, and often try to cause litigation to be drawn out in order to gain an advantage over their insureds and others. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico insurance bad faith lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

New Mexico Federal Court Bifurcates Contract-based Claims from Bad Faith Claims Against Insurance Company

Insurance Company Lawyers Can Be Held Liable for Violations of the New Mexico Insurance Code

The plaintiff alleged that she had suffered injuries after her vehicle was rear-ended by another vehicle. She settled with the insurance company of the driver who had allegedly caused the accident for the limits of that driver’s insurance policy, and then made a demand on her own insurance company for UIM and the insurance company refused to pay. She then sued her insurance company, asserting two different sets of claims. She claimed a breach of contract based on her insurer’s non-payment of UIM benefits and breach of the duties of good faith and fair dealing. These were contract based claims under her insurance policy with the defendant insurance company.

In separate counts, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged extra-contractual claims for insurance bad faith, violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), and violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The defendant insurance company moved to bifurcate the trials of Plaintiff’s UIM contract based claims from her bad faith, UIPA, and UTPA claims and stay discovery on those extra-contractual claims “until such time as a jury has found that the Plaintiff is legally entitled to recover benefits on the underlying UIM breach of contract claim.” The plaintiff opposed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) allows a court to order separate trials on one or more issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims or third-party claims for the sake of convenience, avoiding prejudice, or expediting and economizing. Applicable case law provides that it is appropriate for New Mexico federal trial courts to bifurcate under Rule 42(b) in cases where these interests favor separation of issues and the issues are clearly separable such as, for example, when the resolution of one claim may eliminate the need to adjudicate one or more other claims. Bifurcation is considered inappropriate when it will not appreciably shorten trial or affect the evidence offered by the parties because the claims at issue are inextricably interlinked.

Applying this standard, which affords federal judges a broad and significant amount of discretion, the court concluded bifurcation of the plaintiff’s contractual claims from her extra-contractual claims was not mandatory, nor did it promote judicial economy. The court reasoned that determination of the UIM breach of contract claims would not necessarily dispose of all of the plaintiff’s other claims, concluding that bifurcation would result, rather, in duplicative discovery and trials and prolong resolution of the case. In this case the court ruled for the insured party, but in future cases a court can rule for insureds or their insurance companies. The stakes are high. Bifurcation can frustrate a plaintiff by prolonging and delaying litigation and benefit insurance companies seeking to avoid or delay paying their insureds and others.

If you or a loved one has been physically injured in a motor vehicle accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. Among those who may be responsible for reimbursement of the costs associated with such accidents are insurance companies. To help you understand more about your case and make an informed decision about your options for proceeding, call New Mexico insurance insurance bad-faith lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The state court lawsuit was based on the construction company using the services of an insulation and fireproofing contractor to install Icynene SPF in a custom built home. After the Icynene SPF was installed and homeowners moved in, the homeowners complained that the product was causing noxious and harmful fumes, gases and odors to fill the house. The homeowners submitted a demand letter to the construction company, and its insurance company retained counsel to represent the construction company. The homeowners then sued the Icynene SPF manufacturer, the insulation and fireproofing contractor that had installed it and the construction company in the Thirteenth Judicial District of New Mexico.

A few months later the construction company’s insurer filed a complaint in federal court pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act. The insurance company sought a declaration that the allegations in the complaint brought in state court by the homeowners against the construction company were not covered by the construction company’s insurance policy. The homeowners answered the complaint and the construction company moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings.

The federal court was called upon to determine whether to allow the insurance company’s federal case to proceed. The court explained that, while the Declaratory Judgment Act vests federal courts with the power and competence to issue a declaration of rights, whether a court should exercise jurisdiction in a particular case is within the court’s discretion. The concern of the construction company was that the federal court would make determinations in the context of the coverage dispute brought by the insurance company in federal court that should be heard in the primary lawsuit brought by the homeowners in state court. The federal court concluded that it needed only to analyze the insurance policy and did not need to make any underlying factual determinations that would conflict with the state court action. The federal court was unable to determine if the insurance policy provided coverage to the construction company because, according to the court, the insurer omitted pages from the policy when attaching it to the complaint. The court did determine, however, that it was appropriate to exercise jurisdiction over the case and adjudicate the coverage available to the construction company under the insurance policy. Accordingly, it recommended that the construction company’s motion to dismiss or stay proceedings be denied.

If you or a loved one has been physically injured or suffered property damage, there may be grounds for a recovery from those responsible. In some cases, punitive damages are available in addition to compensatory damages. Sometimes the responsible parties will have insurance policies, which may provide a source of recovery. To help you understand more about your case and make an informed decision about options for proceeding, call New Mexico insurance personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Legal Element of Causation Must be Proven in New Mexico Lawsuits Alleging Negligence

New Mexico Federal Trial Court Rules Personal Injury Case Should Proceed to Trial

People who have suffered personal injuries following a New Mexico car accident will often prefer to proceed with litigation in New Mexico state courts in the hopes of advancing a case past motion practice and towards trial. Insurance companies will often prefer to proceed in federal courts, where they hope to bring successful motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, and avoid trial. In this case, the insurance company filed a notice of removal, seeking to invoke the federal court’s jurisdiction and the insured driver successfully challenged the removal, resulting in the case being remanded to New Mexico state court.

The declaratory judgment by the insurance company and counterclaim by the insured driver arose from a four-car collision that occurred in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Allegedly a vehicle struck the car in front of it, causing a series of collisions until ultimately the insured’s car, which was the front vehicle in the chain, was struck from behind. The driver who caused the accident allegedly fled the scene and it was unknown whether that driver had liability insurance. The insured driver filed a claim under his insurance company policy for personal injuries and damages related to the collision, which his insurance company denied on the basis that he had rejected UM/UIM coverage.

The insurance company filed suit in state court to achieve a declaration that its insured’s rejection of UM/UIM coverage was binding and enforceable. After the insurance company filed a notice of removal to federal court, the insured challenged the basis for the removal.

First, the insured driver asserted that the insurance company was not a defendant with removal rights, as it was the plaintiff in the litigation having initiated the case with a petition seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to its liability. The court agreed, rejecting the insurance company’s argument that it was the “true defendant” because the “mainspring of the proceedings” was the insured driver’s intention to be covered by uninsured motorist proceeds. Next, the court rejected the insurance company’s attempt to bifurcate claims so that it would be able to litigate the insured driver’s claims in federal court after the declaratory judgment action in state court concluded. The court reasoned that the insurance company was trying to bifurcate claims in order to create a basis for federal court jurisdiction. While the court ruled in favor of the insured driver on these two points, the court declined to award him attorneys fees and costs on the basis that the insurance company improperly removed the case from state court.

If you or a loved one was injured in an accident, there may be grounds for an award of damages from parties including insurance companies. An award of monetary damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by accidents. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico car accident lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Court of Appeals of New Mexico Affirms Denial of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Personal Injury Case

New Mexico Court Rules Law Capping Damages Recoverable for Medical Malpractice is Unconstitutional

The driver then sued her insurer in New Mexico state court, bringing a complaint for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and negligence. The defendant insurance company removed the insured plaintiff’s action to federal court. The parties filed cross motions for declaratory judgment, which the court construed as motions for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment.

The plaintiff’s chief argument was that the three year time to sue provision for UM claims in the insurance contract violated New Mexico public policy, thereby precluding application of Ohio law and rendering the provision invalid and unenforceable. She sought application of New Mexico’s six year statute of limitations for asserting UM claims. The defendant sought application of the three year limit under Ohio law, arguing it did not violate New Mexico public policy.

The court explained that New Mexico law allows parties to chose the law to be applied to particular disputes through a contractual choice-of-law provision. The court further explained that it could apply New Mexico law if application of the law of the foreign jurisdiction, in this case Ohio, would offend New Mexico public policy. The court concluded, confronted as it was by a New Mexico state law issue, that the New Mexico Supreme Court would invalidate the provision that the insurance company was relying on and instead apply New Mexico law if it was deciding the case. Under New Mexico law there is a six year statute of limitations for UM claims, running from the breach of the insurance contract. This, in and of itself, was not dispositive. The court looked to a New Mexico Supreme Court case holding an exclusionary policy based solely on the date of the accident, that did not take into consideration the actual accrual of the right to make a UM/UIM claim, was unreasonable as a matter of law. Though that ruling was in the context of an insurance contract governed by New Mexico law, the court concluded it was indicative of how the New Mexico Supreme Court would view exclusionary provisions tied to the date of an accident. The court also reasoned that the time bar was fundamentally unfair.

The court held that the exclusionary provision was invalid and unenforceable, and that the plaintiff insured timely sued within 6 years of her insurance company denying coverage. The court therefore did not dismiss the case.

If you or a loved one has been in a car accident, there may be grounds for recovery against sources including insurance companies. In some cases, punitive damages are available in addition to compensatory damages. To understand more about your case and make an informed decision about your options for maximizing your recovery, call New Mexico insurance bad faith lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Legal Element of Causation Must be Proven in New Mexico Lawsuits Alleging Negligence

Bifurcation Not Mandated in Lawsuit by Insured Plaintiff against her Insurance Company Following Car Accident, According to New Mexico Court

In a recent case, the plaintiff asserted causes of action against an insurance company, which included breach of the underinsured motorist coverage provisions of the contract he had entered into with the insurance company that provided him car insurance, plus alleging bad faith. The insurance company filed a successful motion to bifurcate the cause of action for denial of underinsured motorist coverage under the insurance contract from extra-contractual causes of action, and to stay discovery with respect to all extra-contractual causes of action.

The plaintiff had filed a lawsuit in the Twelfth Judicial District for Lincoln County, New Mexico. He alleged that a teenager had driven her parents’ car into his truck while talking on her cell phone after rolling through a stop sign, and that this resulted in his truck spinning on two wheels and sustaining severe damage. The plaintiff also alleged that he suffered grave injuries, which necessitated evaluation and treatment of his chest, hip, back and neck at the Lincoln County Medical Center.

The driver of the car that hit the plaintiff’s truck was cited by local police for failing to yield the right of way. After the plaintiff sued the parents of the driver and the plaintiff’s insurance company, the parents of the driver settled by tendering the $25,000 personal injury limit of their car insurance policy. The plaintiff had underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) and so the lawsuit proceeded against the plaintiff’s insurance company. This defendant removed the lawsuit from state court to federal court.

The plaintiff asserted that the insurance company wrongfully did not pay his medical expenses, and that this was its typical business practice. The insurance company took the position that the plaintiff’s post-accident medical situation was about the same as it was prior to the accident on the basis he had pre-existing injuries and had undergone back surgery just months before the accident. If this was so, then, conceptually, the plaintiff would be unable to satisfy the causation and damages elements of his claim for violation of the UIM provision of his insurance policy, rendering his bad faith claim moot.

In arriving at the conclusion that the two claims should be split up as the defendant sought, the Court critiqued the plaintiff for not responding to the motion to bifurcate, insofar as he had not presented a basis for a different result than that requested by the defendant. The Court also critiqued the way the plaintiff’s complaint had been pleaded because the conduct complained of was mostly failure to pay the plaintiff’s medical expenses. The Court was of the view the plaintiff could have further developed his cause of action for the unlawful trade practices and fraud act and insurance code violations in a way that could have cut in favor of proceeding on multiple theories of recovery.

If you or a loved one has been hurt in an accident or experienced property damage, there may be grounds for recovery against insurance companies and other parties. Insurance companies tend to be very sophisticated litigants, and look for ways to slow down lawsuits in order to cause their insureds to settle for less than what they may be able to ultimately recover. To understand more about your case and make an informed decision about your options for maximizing your recovery, call New Mexico insurance bad faith lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Legal Element of Causation Must be Proven in New Mexico Lawsuits Alleging Negligence

Bifurcation Not Mandated in Lawsuit by Insured Plaintiff against her Insurance Company Following Car Accident, According to New Mexico Court

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are restricted from adjudicating, for example, state law claims asserted by citizens of one state against citizens of another state. In a recent case, an insurance company removed a state court lawsuit against it, its law firm, and one of the attorneys working for the law firm from state court, where the insureds had filed it, to federal court.

The insureds had filed suit in New Mexico state court, alleging causes of action including violations of the Trade Practices and Frauds Article (TPFA) of the New Mexico insurance code, stemming from interactions with the lawyers acting for the insurance company. They alleged that they believed themselves to be victims of a profit-maximizing scheme designed to coerce them to settle for a fraction of what their insurance claims were worth arising from the stealing and burning of a van and the removal of tools and equipment from the van.

The insurance company, based in Illinois, removed the lawsuit to federal court. This defendant accused its insureds of fraudulently joining the insurance company’s law firm and one of the attorneys working for the law firm so that the case would have New Mexico plaintiffs and defendants, making it non-removable to federal court. In order to determine whether the law firm and attorney had been fraudulently joined, the federal court to which the case had been removed was asked to determine if there was a reasonable basis for recovery in New Mexico state court against the law firm or its attorney who had been named with the law firm and their insurance company client as a defendant.

The federal court concluded that there could be a basis for recovery, based on the allegations the insurance company used its co-defendants to try to pressure the insured plaintiffs to settle their claims as part of an illegal profit-maximizing scheme. Part of the court’s reasoning was that, given people assisting an insurance company’s resolution of a claim can be sued in their personal capacities for violating the TPFA, why should there be an escape from liability for people with law degrees?

The federal court did not conclude that the insured plaintiffs would recover in state court or that the state court should rule in their favor. The federal court explained the question, instead, was whether a New Mexico court could ever rule for the insured plaintiffs. Concluding that there was a reasonable chance that the insured plaintiffs could recover in state court on their TPFA claims, the federal court remanded their action back to state court.

If you or a loved one has experienced property damage, there may be grounds for recovery against sources including insurance companies. In some cases, punitive damages are available in addition to compensatory damages. Agents of an insurance company may try to settle your claim for a fixed sum of money in exchange for a release of liability. To understand more about your case and make an informed decision about your options for maximizing your recovery, call New Mexico insurance bad faith lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Legal Element of Causation Must be Proven in New Mexico Lawsuits Alleging Negligence

Bifurcation Not Mandated in Lawsuit by Insured Plaintiff against her Insurance Company Following Car Accident, According to New Mexico Court

The insurance coverage dispute arose following a New Mexico car accident that occurred early in the morning, when the owner of a 2001 Chevrolet Suburban was sleeping. An uninsured motorist, then fleeing from police officers, struck the insured’s car when, fortunately, no one was in the car. No one sustained any injuries to their bodies when the accident occurred. But the Chevrolet Suburban sustained disabling damage.

According to the Court of Appeals opinion, the insured incurred $3,566.24 in property damage to his vehicle, and he sought a recovery under the uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) property damage provision of his policy. Under his insurance policy, there were coverage limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for bodily injury. The insurance policy also had a provision providing a recovery with coverage limits of $10,000 for property damage.

Litigation arose after the insurer limited its payout to the insured to $10,000. The insured demanded that the insurer pay a recovery of punitive damages, based on the insurance policy’s UM/UIM bodily injury coverage. The insurer denied liability for punitive damages and filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the insured was not entitled to recover under the insurance policy any amounts beyond the $10,000 limit for property damage. The insured filed a counterclaim, alleging a breach of the insurance contract and wrongful and unlawful denial of UM/UIM coverage. Each of the parties filed motions for summary judgment.

Following an arbitration that did not result in a settlement, as well as more motion practice, the district court conducted a trial and ruled thereafter that the insured was entitled to $20,000 in punitive damages in addition to the $10,000 in compensatory damages previously paid out by the insurance company. The district court focused on the events giving rise to the accident, including the behavior of the driver responsible for the accident, which occurred when the driver was fleeing from police officers. The driver was subsequently arrested. In the district court’s view, the purpose of punitive damages logically demanded access to the higher coverage limits of the insurance policy at issue. The district court subsequently awarded the insured $12,000 in attorneys’ fees after finding that the insurance company breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The insurance company appealed its losses, and the New Mexico Court of Appeals was very sympathetic to the appeal. In a ruling written by the Chief Judge, the Court agreed with the insurance company on all issues raised on appeal and reversed the district court. The appellate court’s reasoning included that the predicate for an award of punitive damages can only be the same conduct that caused the actual damages. Citing rulings from courts outside New Mexico, the appellate court further reasoned that policy limits for separate types of coverage cannot be used interchangeably.

This case can be read as reflective of the difficulties inherent in trying to achieve recoveries under an insurance policy. Before trial, the parties participated in a court-ordered settlement conference. The insured alleged that the insurer offered $2,500 and failed to engage in meaningful negotiations. The insured unsuccessfully moved for sanctions. These events and the trial followed after the initial demand for payment under the insurance policy was rejected by the insurer, and the insurer filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. Then, after losing at the trial, the insurance company preferred to appeal rather than pay out.

If you or a loved one sustained property damage, there may be grounds for a recovery from insurance policies, which may include yours and those providing coverage to third parties. In some cases, punitive damages are available. If your insurance company has denied your claim for property damage, or you are experiencing delays in achieving coverage, your insurance company may be dealing in bad faith. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico insurance bad faith lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Legal Element of Causation Must be Proven in New Mexico Lawsuits Alleging Negligence

New Mexico Property Owners Have Duty to Those Invited Onto Property, Including for Open and Obvious Dangers