2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 66 - Motor Vehicles › Article 5 - Licensing of Operators and Chauffeurs; Financial Responsibility; Uninsured Motorists' Insurance; Identification Cards › Part 3 - FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY › Section 66-5-207 - Exempt motor vehicles.

The following motor vehicles are exempt from the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act:
A. a motor vehicle owned by the United States government, any state or any political subdivision of a state;
B. an implement of husbandry or special mobile equipment that is only incidentally operated on a highway;
C. a motor vehicle operated upon a highway only for the purpose of crossing such highway from one property to another;
D. a commercial motor vehicle registered or proportionally registered in this and any other jurisdiction, provided such motor vehicle is covered by a motor vehicle insurance policy or equivalent coverage or other form of financial responsibility in compliance with the laws of any other jurisdiction in which it is registered;
E. a motor vehicle approved as self-insured by the superintendent of insurance pursuant to Section 66-5-207.1 NMSA 1978; and
F. any motor vehicle when the owner has submitted to the department a signed statement, in the form prescribed by the department, declaring that the vehicle will not be operated on the highways of New Mexico and explaining the reasons therefor.
History:
1978 Comp., § 66-5-507, enacted by Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 8; 1986, ch. 111, § 1; 1998, ch. 34, § 8.
ANNOTATIONS
Recompilations.
— Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 8, recompiled former 66-5-207 NMSA 1978, relating to the meaning of "judgment," as 66-5-209 NMSA 1978, effective January 1, 1984.
The 1998 amendment,
effective July 1, 1998, in Subsection D, substituted "insurance" for "liability policy or certified motor vehicle liability" following "a motor vehicle", inserted "equivalent coverage or" following "policy or"; in Subsection F, substituted "department" for "division" twice, and deleted "as may be" following "form"; and made minor stylistic changes.
Self-insured car rental company exempt.
— A self-insured car rental company was not subject to the requirements of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act.
Cordova v. Wolfel
, 1995-NMSC-061, 120 N.M. 557, 903 P.2d 1390.
A regulation on the requirements for obtaining a certificate of self-insurance stating that car rental agreements must provide that the lessor shall be primarily liable and that the lessee shall be secondarily liable under the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act did not make the Act applicable to a self-insured car rental company, because that interpretation would directly conflict with Subsection E which explicitly exempts self-insured vehicles.
Cordova v. Wolfel
, 1995-NMSC-061, 120 N.M. 557, 903 P.2d 1390.
Off-highway motor vehicle was exempt from the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act.
— Where plaintiff was involved in an auto collision while operating a 2011 Ford truck, and where, at the time of the collision, plaintiff had an automobile insurance policy, which insured three vehicles, including the Ford truck, and included $100,000 in UM/UIM coverage per person per vehicle, and an off-road vehicle insurance policy, which insured plaintiff's Polaris RZR (razor), with defendant insurance company, and where, following the collision, plaintiff filed a complaint against the responsible party, an underinsured motorist, and defendant, and where, in an arbitration proceeding, the arbitration panel awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $425,000, and where defendant moved to either vacate any award in excess of $275,000 or modify the award to limit it to $275,000 to comport with the terms of plaintiff's automobile insurance policy less a $25,000 settlement from the responsible party, and where plaintiff responded that the automobile insurance policy and the off-road vehicle policy should be stacked, entitling her to $400,000 of UM/UIM coverage, which reflected her maximum coverage minus the settlement from the responsible party, the district court did not err in granting defendant's motion, because plaintiff's razor, a motor vehicle primarily intended for off-road use and not licensed or equipped for on-road use, was exempt from the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, 66-5-201 to 66-5-239 NMSA 1978, and, as such, defendant was not required to offer UM/UIM coverage on the policy insuring plaintiff's razor.
Castillo v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
, 2023-NMCA-009.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.
— 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 111.