Court Opinion

ID: 9608050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:05:22.093589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:41.793730
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, Judge (Specially concurring). I concur in the affirmance of the judgment below. With respect to the claim against ISLIC, a liability insurer has no statutory duty to provide uninsured-motorist coverage if the “named insured” rejects such coverage. NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-301(0). APS rejected the coverage. Appellant contends on appeal that Saavedra was also a named insured, Saavedra did not waive uninsured-motorist coverage, and therefore ISLIC was not relieved of its duty to provide such coverage. The ISLIC policy, however, clearly includes only APS as a named insured. Moreover, Appellant cannot raise on appeal her contention that there is evidence to show that Saavedra was a named insured. Because she did not raise this contention prior to entry of the final judgment in favor of ISLIC, see SCRA 1986, 1-054(0(2), she failed to preserve it for appellate review, see SCRA 1986, 12-216. As for the judgment in favor of General, General did not issue a liability policy on the bus being driven by Appellant. A “liability policy” is one that “insur[es] against loss resulting from liability imposed by law.” Section 66-5-301(A) (emphasis added). The only coverage provided by General with respect to Saavedra’s buses was for physical damage to the buses resulting from collisions and other specified causes. The only liability coverage provided by General was for one specific automobile listed in the policy. Because the General policy did not provide liability coverage with respect to the bus, the statute requiring uninsured-motorist coverage is inapplicable. See id. Finally, I agree with the majority of the panel that no statutory provision or contract term required APS to provide or carry uninsured-motorist coverage on the bus driven by Appellant.