Legal Opinion

Bird v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided May 31, 2007No. 26,688PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CASTILLO, Judge.

{1} In this case, we consider the extent of coverage afforded a vehicle covered under the “newly acquired ear” provision of an automobile insurance policy. We also address questions concerning double costs, pre-judgment interest, attorney fees, and the rate of post-judgment interest imposed in this case. As to the coverage question, we conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the policy provided additional uninsured motorist (UM) coverage on the newly acquired car and that the coverage could be stacked. Therefore, we affirm on this issue. We further conclude…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Rummel v. Lexington InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Ponder v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2000
  4. United Nuclear Corp. v. Allendale Mutual InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Sloan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2004

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Sackett v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Sunnyland Farms, Inc. v. Central New Mexico Electric Cooperative, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Toner v. Travelers Home & Marine InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Albuquerque Commons P'ship v. City CouncilNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Albuquerque Commons Partnership v. City CouncilNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2011

24 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