No person shall make, publish, issue or circulate any estimate, illustration, circular,
statement, sales presentation or comparison which:
A. misrepresents the benefits, advantages, conditions or terms of any policy;
B. misrepresents the premium overcharge commonly called dividends or share of
the surplus to be received on any policy;
C. makes any false or misleading statement as to dividends or share of surplus
previously paid on any policy;
D. is misleading or a misrepresentation as to the financial condition of any person,
or as to the reserve system upon which any life insurer operates;
E. uses any name or title of any policy or class of policies misrepresenting the true
nature thereof;
F. misrepresents any policy as being shares of stock; or
G. fails to disclose material facts reasonably necessary to prevent other statements
made from being misleading.
History: Laws 1984, ch. 127, § 272.
ANNOTATIONS
Many factors figure into issue of materiality. Smoot v. Physicians Life Ins. Co., 2004-
NMCA-027, 135 N.M. 265, 87 P.3d 545.
Unfair Insurance Practices Act imposes duty to disclose material facts
reasonably necessary to prevent any statements from being misleading. Smoot v.
Physicians Life Ins. Co., 2004-NMCA-027, 135 N.M. 265, 87 P.3d 545.
Existence of duty is dependent on materiality of the facts. Smoot v. Physicians Life
Ins. Co., 2004-NMCA-027, 135 N.M. 265, 87 P.3d 545.
Violation of act shown. — A claim under this act was supported by evidence that
defendant insurer knew that the rates were inadequate prior to the time the agreement
went into effect and did not disclose its method for deciding whether to add a surcharge
to the preliminary premium or increase annual rates, and that plaintiff would not have
contracted with defendant if it had that information. Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v.
Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1999).
Disclosures related to modal premium charges. — Under both the Unfair Practices
Act and the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, an insurer may have a duty to disclose
information about "finance charges" and "APR" rates when insureds pay modal
premium charges, depending on the materiality of the facts. Azar v. Prudential Ins. Co.,
2003-NMCA-062, 133 N.M. 669, 68 P.3d 909, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 539, 65 P.3d
1094.
The filed rate doctrine does not apply to misleading business practices. — Where
plaintiff, an insured, brought an action alleging her insurer sold her illusory underinsured
motorist insurance and asserted claims for violations of New Mexico's Unfair Insurance
Practices Act, and where the insurer moved to dismiss plaintiff's action, claiming that the
relevant rates were filed with the insurance department and therefore the filed rate
doctrine barred plaintiff's claims, the motion to dismiss was denied because the filed
rate doctrine, which provides that any filed rate that is approved by the governing
regulatory agency is per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought
by ratepayers, does not apply to claims where a consumer alleges that an insurer
misrepresents material facts about a policy when making the sale. Bhasker v. Casualty
Ins. Co., 284 F.Supp.3d 1191 (D. N.M. 2018).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Liability of insurance agent or broker to
insured for misrepresentation of cash surrender value or accumulated value benefits of
life insurance policy, 44 A.L.R.4th 1030.
Notes of Decisions
Bhasker v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co., 361 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (D.N.M. 2019).
· cites it 4× “" N.M. Stat. Ann. § 59A-16-4. Section 59A-16-5 forbids "untrue, deceptive or misleading" advertisements that relate to insurance.”
Azar v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2003-NMCA-062, 68 P.3d 909.
· cites it 3× “” {19} The trial court specifically found that Prudential: (1) violated the UPA and that the regulatory exemption of Section 57-12-1 did not apply; (2) violated NMSA 1978, Sections 59A-16-4 and -5 (1984), of the UIPA; and (3) “violated its common law duty to make full disclosure…”
Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins., 170 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 59A-16-4 (G). Woodworker presented evidence that Principal Mutual knew that the rates were inadequate prior to the time the agreement went into effect, and that Principal Mutual did not disclose its method for deciding whether to add a surcharge to the…”
Roark v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 2007-NMCA-074, 162 P.3d 896.
· cites it 2× “The Trial Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion When It Denied Bank’s Motion to Amend the Complaint {12} Twenty months after the filing of the original complaint and after the close of discovery, Bank filed a motion to amend the complaint to include claims of estoppel, insurance…”
Hauff v. Petterson, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D.N.M. 2010).
· cites it 2× “N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 59A-16-4(A), 59A-16-20(H).”
Emmons v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 799 F. Supp. 1123 (D.N.M. 1992).
“The Tenth Circuit applied these criteria to a Colorado statute that is for all relevant purposes virtually identical to the sections of the New Mexico statute at issue in this case, NMSA (1978) §§ 59A-16-4(B) and 59A-16-20(A). Kelley v.”
Graham v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico, No. 1:22-cv-00305 (D.N.M. Sept. 18, 2023).
· cites it 8× “See NMSA §§ 59A-16-4. Instead, the statute prohibits misrepresentations about “the benefits, advantages, conditions or terms of any policy,” § 59A-16-4(A), and forbids any failure to disclose material facts, § 59A-16-4 (G).”
Mazel v. Las Cruces Abstract & Title Co., No. 18-01057 (Bankr. D.N.M. July 2, 2020).
· cites it 4× “To prevail on a § 59A-16-4(A) claim, URELC must show that Fidelity misrepresented a “benefit, advantage, condition or term” of the Owner’s Policy.”
Mazel v. Las Cruces Abstract & Title Co., No. 18-01057 (Bankr. D.N.M. Jan. 29, 2021).
· cites it 2× “Finally, Count 6 is an Unfair Insurance Practices Act claim against LCAT and Fidelity, alleging that the Omission was a prohibited misrepresentation under NMSA § 59A-16-4(A). 4 Plaintiffs also sued TCNM, LLC, a corporation that bought LCAT’s business in 2015, under a successor…”
Coto, No. 1:25-cv-00160 (D.N.M. Nov. 6, 2025).
· cites it 2× “Disallowing a claim for this kind of practice would amount to sanctioning a loophole where insurers are prohibited from deceptive and misleading statements in certain precontract documents, see Section 59A-16-4 (1984) (prohibiting misrepresentation and false advertisement in an…”
N.M. Stat. § 59A-16-4(A): 6 cases
Hauff v. Petterson, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D.N.M. 2010).
“N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 59A-16-4(A), 59A-16-20(H).”
Mazel v. Las Cruces Abstract & Title Co., No. 18-01057 (Bankr. D.N.M. July 2, 2020).
“To prevail on a § 59A-16-4(A) claim, URELC must show that Fidelity misrepresented a “benefit, advantage, condition or term” of the Owner’s Policy.”
Mazel v. Las Cruces Abstract & Title Co., No. 18-01057 (Bankr. D.N.M. Jan. 29, 2021).
“Finally, Count 6 is an Unfair Insurance Practices Act claim against LCAT and Fidelity, alleging that the Omission was a prohibited misrepresentation under NMSA § 59A-16-4(A). 4 Plaintiffs also sued TCNM, LLC, a corporation that bought LCAT’s business in 2015, under a successor…”
N.M. Stat. § 59A-16-4(B): 1 case
Emmons v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 799 F. Supp. 1123 (D.N.M. 1992).
“The Tenth Circuit applied these criteria to a Colorado statute that is for all relevant purposes virtually identical to the sections of the New Mexico statute at issue in this case, NMSA (1978) §§ 59A-16-4(B) and 59A-16-20(A). Kelley v.”
N.M. Stat. § 59A-16-4(G): 1 case
Azar v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2003-NMCA-062, 68 P.3d 909.
“” {19} The trial court specifically found that Prudential: (1) violated the UPA and that the regulatory exemption of Section 57-12-1 did not apply; (2) violated NMSA 1978, Sections 59A-16-4 and -5 (1984), of the UIPA; and (3) “violated its common law duty to make full disclosure…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.