Legal Opinion

Padilla v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided November 16, 2001No. 21,222PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ALARID, Judge.

{1} This case presents the issue of whether the public policy of New Mexico precludes the enforcement of an “escape hatch” arbitration provision found in an uninsured motorist endorsement. The district court viewed the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruch v. CNA Ins. Co., 117 N.M. 211, 213, 870 P.2d 749, 751 (1994), as controlling; and, applying Bruch, upheld the provision. We find Bruch to be distinguishable. We conclude that on the facts of this case the public policies underlying the uninsured motorist statute and the Uniform Arbitration Act collectively outweigh the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Silva v. StateNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co. of ArizonaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Romero v. Dairyland InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Gunaji v. MacIasNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Estep v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1985

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Padilla v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2003
  2. McMillan v. Allstate Indemnity Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2003
  3. State v. HoltNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2015
  4. Rodeo, Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2006
  5. State v. HoltNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2015

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API