Opinion ID: 2767550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inter-Policy versus Intra-Policy Stacking

Text: Saveraid attempts to distinguish Shope from her own case by arguing that New Mexico law on stacking policies distinguishes between inter-policy and intra- -7- policy stacking. Shope concerned intra-policy stacking, while Saveraid’s case involves inter-policy stacking. Accordingly, she argues that Shope’s holding applies only to intra-policy stacking cases. In Shope, the New Mexico Supreme Court confronted a choice-of-law dispute over whether to enforce an anti-stacking provision from a Virginia insurance contract. 925 P.2d at 515–16. Virginia law enforces anti-stacking provisions. Id. at 516. While the court noted that New Mexico public policy favors stacking in UIM cases when separate premiums have been paid, “this rule is one of contract interpretation that does not rise to the level of a fundamental principle of justice.” Id. at 517. Saveraid argues that New Mexico treats inter- and intra-policy stacking provisions differently, and so Shope only applies to intra-policy stacking. She argues to us that inter-policy stacking rises to the level of a fundamental principle of justice. We are not persuaded. As we show below, the New Mexico Supreme Court does not meaningfully distinguish between interand intra-policy stacking and so Saveraid cannot successfully distinguish her facts from Shope. A brief review of New Mexico law on stacking establishes that it does not distinguish between inter- and intra-policy stacking when evaluating whether such provisions violate a New Mexico fundamental principle of justice. Two of the foundational cases are Sloan v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 519 P.2d 301 (N.M. -8- 1974), and Lopez v. Found. Reserve Ins. Co., 646 P.2d 1230 (N.M. 1982). In Sloan, the New Mexico Supreme Court permitted inter-policy stacking when the insured had paid separate premiums for each of the policies. 519 P.2d at 302–03. In Lopez, the court permitted intra-policy stacking on the same public policy grounds. 646 P.2d at 1235. It explained that “[t]he crucial question, therefore, is not whether multiple vehicles are insured under one policy or several, but whether the insured has paid one premium or several for the particular uninsured motorist coverage sought to be stacked.” Id. The critical issue is not the number of policies but the number of premiums paid. The district court relied on Lopez for the proposition that New Mexico does not make “a firm distinction between intra-policy stacking and inter-policy stacking.” Appellant App. at 217. Saveraid criticizes the court for this reliance, claiming that Lopez does in fact distinguish between the two types of stacking. We agree with the district court. In fact, the Lopez court explained that “[t]he reasoning adopted in the Sloan case is applicable to the issue in the present case.” Lopez, 646 P.2d at 1233. The cited cases have all treated inter- and intra-policy stacking cases the same. Saveraid also criticizes the district court for relying on Konnick v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 703 P.2d 889 (N.M. 1985). But she misses the point yet again— the district court relied on Konnick, a case in which the New Mexico Supreme -9- Court allowed inter-policy stacking, because it cites both Lopez (intra) and Sloan (inter) for support, again demonstrating that New Mexico courts treat inter- and intra-policy cases the same. 5 Thus, we agree with the district court that New Mexico courts do not distinguish between inter- and intra-policy stacking.