insuring clause (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

insuring clause in New Mexico

10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2012 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Knowles v. United Services Automobile Ass'ngreen
nm · 1992 · cited in 3 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1993–2003
2 sentences

2003Where an insuring clause and an exclusionary clause irreconcilably conflict, courts may refuse to enforce the exclusionary clause when it would have “deprive[d] the insured of the insurance coverage which the insured reasonably understood was afforded by the policy for which premiums were paid.” Knowles, 113 N.M. at 707 , 832 P.2d at 398 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2003Where an insuring clause and an exclusionary clause irreconcilably conflict, courts may refuse to enforce the exclusionary clause when it would have “deprive[d] the insured of the insurance coverage which the insured reasonably understood was afforded by the policy for which premiums were paid.” Knowles, 113 N.M. at 707 , 832 P.2d at 398 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

23
World Fire & Marine Ins. v. Carolina Mills Distributing Co.green
ca8 · 1948 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992In King, we relied heavily on World Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Carolina Mills Distributing Co., 169 F.2d 826 (8th Cir.1948), to support our conclusion that the insuring clause would be given effect despite a conflicting exclusionary clause.

1992See King, 84 N.M. at 555 , 505 P.2d at 1231 ; World Fire, 169 F.2d at 829-30 . 3 As in King and World Fire, it is possible to construe the exclusionary condition so as to harmonize it with the insuring clause, although doing so necessarily results in the conclusion that the condition is ambiguous and so must be construed against the insurer.

22
Insurance Co. of North America v. Wylie Corp.green
nm · 1987 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992See Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Wylie Corp., 105 N.M. 406, 410 , 733 P.2d 854, 858 (1987) (giving coverage with right hand and taking away with left is not favored in construing insurance policies).

1992See Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Wylie Corp., 105 N.M. 406, 410 , 733 P.2d 854, 858 (1987) (giving coverage with right hand and taking away with left is not favored in construing insurance policies).

22
King v. Travelers Insurance Companygreen
nm · 1973 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992See King, 84 N.M. at 555 , 505 P.2d at 1231 ; World Fire, 169 F.2d at 829-30 . 3 As in King and World Fire, it is possible to construe the exclusionary condition so as to harmonize it with the insuring clause, although doing so necessarily results in the conclusion that the condition is ambiguous and so must be construed against the insurer.

1992See King, 84 N.M. at 555 , 505 P.2d at 1231 ; World Fire, 169 F.2d at 829-30 . 3 As in King and World Fire, it is possible to construe the exclusionary condition so as to harmonize it with the insuring clause, although doing so necessarily results in the conclusion that the condition is ambiguous and so must be construed against the insurer.

22
Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurancegreen
calctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012Co., 42 Cal. App. 4th 121, 129 , 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 567, 572 (Ct. App. 1996) (A “policy must be read as a whole and it cannot be said that an exclusion is in ‘conflict’ with an insuring clause.

2012Co., 42 Cal. App. 4th 121, 129 , 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 567, 572 (Ct. App. 1996) (A “policy must be read as a whole and it cannot be said that an exclusion is in ‘conflict’ with an insuring clause.

11
Baker v. Armstronggreen
nm · 1987 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997See Baker, 106 N.M. at 396 , 744 P.2d at 171 (“A court should not construe an exclusion of liability for punitive damages where there is nothing in the insuring clause to forewarn an insured that such was to be the intent of the parties.”). 12.

1997See Baker, 106 N.M. at 396 , 744 P.2d at 171 (“A court should not construe an exclusion of liability for punitive damages where there is nothing in the insuring clause to forewarn an insured that such was to be the intent of the parties.”). 12.

11
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994Cf. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.3d 1435 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 269, 275 (1989) (holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else).

1994Cf. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.3d 1435 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 269, 275 (1989) (holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else).

11
O'ROURKE v. New Amsterdam Casualty Companygreen
nm · 1961 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1961–1961
2 sentences

1961See O’Rourke v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 68 N.M. 409 , 362 P.2d 790 .

1961See O’Rourke v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 68 N.M. 409 , 362 P.2d 790 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Federal Ins. Co. v. CENTURY FED. S. & L. green
nm · 1992
2 sentences

1992To enforce the repugnant exclusionary clause would have “deprive[d] the insured of the insurance coverage which the insured reasonably understood was afforded by the policy for which premiums were paid.” Id. at 169 , 824 P.2d at 309 .

1992To enforce the repugnant exclusionary clause would have “deprive[d] the insured of the insurance coverage which the insured reasonably understood was afforded by the policy for which premiums were paid.” Id. at 169 , 824 P.2d at 309 .

11992–1992

Where else courts name it

CA 115 (1960–2025) TX 25 (1942–2016) NY 16 (1940–2024) MO 15 (1932–2019) MA 14 (1953–2011) NJ 12 (1961–2021) FL 12 (1971–2021) AZ 12 (1984–2021) IN 12 (1925–2018) NM 10 (1961–2012) ND 9 (1967–2013) TN 8 (1951–1999) LA 7 (1939–1987) WA 6 (1946–2006) IA 6 (1942–2016) IL 6 (1934–2023) PA 5 (1936–2001) NC 5 (1938–1996) WI 4 (1984–2015) MS 4 (1961–2010) UT 4 (1938–2013) WV 3 (1982–2013) KY 3 (1932–2010) MD 3 (1997–2022) AL 3 (1984–1988) OH 3 (1959–1994) MN 2 (1979–1988) SC 2 (2012–2013) MI 2 (1943–1957) GA 2 (1941–1952) AR 2 (1932–1963) NE 2 (1936–1968) VT 2 (2019–2019) OR 2 (1978–1979) VA 2 (1957–1976)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check