N.M. Stat. § 52-1-4 (2026)

coverage with workers' compensation administration; exemptions
from requirement.
    A. Every employer subject to the Workers' Compensation Act shall direct his
insurance carrier to file, and the insurance carrier shall file, in the office of the director
evidence of workers' compensation insurance coverage in the form of a certificate
containing that information required by regulation of the director. The required certificate
must be provided by an authorized insurer as defined in Section 59A-1-8 NMSA 1978.
In case any employer is able to show to the satisfaction of the director that he is
financially solvent and that providing insurance coverage is unnecessary, the director
shall issue him a certificate to that effect, which shall be filed in lieu of the certificate of
insurance. The director shall provide by regulations the procedures for reviewing,
renewing and revoking any certificate excusing an employer from filing a certificate of
insurance, including provisions permitting the director to condition the issuance of the
certificate upon the employer's proving adequate security.

   B. Any certificate of the director filed under the provisions of this section shall show
the post office address of such employer.

   C. Every contract or policy insuring against liability for workers' compensation
benefits or certificate filed under the provisions of this section shall provide that the
insurance carrier or the employer shall be directly and primarily liable to the worker and,
in event of his death, his dependents, to pay the compensation and other workers'
compensation benefits for which the employer is liable.

   D. In the event of an insurance policy cancellation, the workers' compensation
insurance carrier shall file notice to the director within ten days of such cancellation on a
form approved by the director.

History: 1978 Comp., § 52-1-4, enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 235, § 5; 1989, ch. 263, § 4;
1990 (2nd S.S.), ch. 2, § 2.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1987, ch. 235, § 5 repealed former 52-1-4 NMSA
1978 as amended by Laws 1986, ch. 22, § 2, and enacted a new 52-1-4 NMSA 1978.

Cross references. — For employers of private domestic servants or of farm and ranch
laborers exempt from act, see 52-1-6 NMSA 1978.

The 1990 (2nd S.S.) amendment, effective January 1, 1991, substituted
"administration" for "division" in the catchline; added the present second sentence in
Subsection A; in Subsection C, deleted "for which is" following "certificate" near the
beginning and substituted "workers'" for "worker's" near the end; deleted former
Subsection D relating to exemptions for certain governmental entities; and redesignated
former Subsection E as Subsection D.

Workmen's [Workers'] Compensation Act is compulsory, not elective, and
compliance may be accomplished by filing an undertaking in the nature of insurance, by
filing a certificate in evidence thereof, or by qualifying as a self-insurer; the failure of an
employer to comply in any way constitutes a violation of the act and subjects him to a
claim in tort for negligence by an employee. Montano v. Williams, 1976-NMCA-017, 89
N.M. 86, 547 P.2d 569, aff'd, 1976-NMSC-022, 89 N.M. 252, 550 P.2d 264.

Purpose under elective act such as this is to cause the employer to obtain
compensation protection. It is contrary to legislative intent that any technical delay which
in no way prejudices a claimant would give rise to a common-law suit. Quintana v.
Nolan Bros., 1969-NMCA-083, 80 N.M. 589, 458 P.2d 841.

Purpose of mandatory filing requirement is to notify a workman [worker] that the
employer has complied with the insurance requirements of the act; that the employer is
subject to the provisions thereof and that the workman [worker] is conclusively
presumed to have accepted its provisions. Shope v. Don Coe Constr. Co., 1979-NMCA-
013, 92 N.M. 508, 590 P.2d 656.

Frustration of legislative intent. — There is a point beyond which the mandatory
provisions of the Workmen's [Workers'] Compensation Act cannot be ignored. If the
mandatory provisions are disregarded altogether it is clear that the intention of the
legislature would be totally frustrated. Security Trust v. Smith, 1979-NMSC-024, 93 N.M.
35, 596 P.2d 248.

Employee's remedies where employer fails to file. — If the employer utterly fails to
comply with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (this article), such as by
failing to obtain insurance or to properly file a certificate of insurance, the employee has
two options: she may either file a workers' compensation action or file an action for
common law remedies, to which she may attach a contract claim for wrongful discharge.
Failure to comply with the act does not allow the employee to file both a workers'
compensation action and a wrongful discharge action. Shores v. Charter Servs., Inc.,
1987-NMSC-109, 106 N.M. 569, 746 P.2d 1101.

Workman [Worker's] right to common-law action conclusive. — Where the
employer has actually failed to obtain insurance coverage and no insurance coverage
exists at the time the common-law action is filed, the workman's [worker's] right to the
common-law action is conclusive. Shope v. Don Coe Constr. Co., 1979-NMCA-013, 92
N.M. 508, 590 P.2d 656.

Purpose of depriving noncomplying employer of common-law defenses under an
elective act such as this is to cause the employer to obtain compensation protection. It
would seem contrary to legislative intent that any technical delay which in no way
prejudices a claimant would give rise to a common-law suit. Mirabal v. Internatioal
Minerals & Chem. Corp., 1967-NMSC-043, 77 N.M. 576, 425 P.2d 740.

Standard in state for foreclosure of employee's common-law remedies is whether
the employer has substantially complied with the Workmen's [Workers'] Compensation
Act; strict compliance is not necessary. Security Trust v. Smith, 1979-NMSC-024, 93
N.M. 35, 596 P.2d 248.

Substantial compliance. — The substantial compliance doctrine requires not only that
the employer file proof of insurance coverage before the worker files a suit, but also that
the employer actually had maintained workers’ compensation for its employees as of
the date of the injury in question. Peterson v. Wells Fargo Armored Services Corp.,
2000-NMCA-043, 129 N.M. 158, 3 P.3d 135, cert. denied, 129 N.M. 207, 4 P.3d 35.

Employer's late filing of insurance policy not substantial compliance. —
Employer's late filing of a policy of insurance or a certificate of proof thereof with the
clerk of the district court, (now superintendent of insurance), as required by this section,
does not constitute substantial compliance with the Workmen's [Workers']
Compensation Act, where such filing occurred after the date of plaintiffs' injuries and
also after the date of the commencement in the federal court of plaintiffs' actions
seeking common-law and statutory remedies other than those provided for by the
Workmen's [Workers'] Compensation Act. Security Trust v. Smith, 1979-NMSC-024, 93
N.M. 35, 596 P.2d 248.
Late filing after plaintiff has commenced suit may constitute substantial
compliance with the mandatory filing requirements of this section, so as to force
plaintiff to seek the exclusive remedies of the act, when plaintiff received actual notice of
the policy's existence before his filing. Baldwin v. Worley Mills, Inc., 1980-NMCA-128,
95 N.M. 398, 622 P.2d 706, cert. denied, 95 N.M. 426, 622 P.2d 1046 (1981).

The "shall file" provision in this section is mandatory. Montano v. Williams, 1976-
NMCA-017, 89 N.M. 86, 547 P.2d 569, aff'd, 1976-NMSC-022, 89 N.M. 252, 550 P.2d
264; Quintana v. Nolan Bros., 1969-NMCA-083, 80 N.M. 589, 458 P.2d 841 (decided
prior to the 1989 amendment).

This section places duty of filing upon employer, not the insurer and if the employer
pursued a course indicating there was no compensation insurance, it might be estopped
to show there was coverage in fact, and might therefore subject itself to the liability
resulting from the failure to provide insurance. Quintana v. Nolan Bros., 1969-NMCA-
083, 80 N.M. 589, 458 P.2d 841 (decided prior to the 1989 amendment).

Failure to file would not deprive court of jurisdiction. — If an insurer, named as a
defendant in a workmen's [workers'] compensation suit, was served pursuant to former