New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 66-5-221 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
ANNOTATIONS Repeals. — Laws 1998, ch. 34, § 19 repealed 66-5-221 NMSA 1978, 1953 Comp., § 64-5-230, as enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 306; 1978 Comp., § 66-5-230, recompiled as 1978 Comp., § 66-5-221 by Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 21, relating to certified motor vehicle liability policy; provisions, effective July 1, 1998. For provisions of former section, see the 1997 NMSA 1978 on NMOneSource.com.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1986–2003 · leading case: Martinez Ex Rel. Stransky v. Reid, 46 P.3d 1237 (N.M. 2002).
Martinez Ex Rel. Stransky v. Reid, 46 P.3d 1237 (N.M. 2002). “Instead, the Court concluded that Section 66-5-221, which had been repealed but applied to the case at bar, manifested an intent to allow joinder.”
Allstate Ins. v. Jensen, 788 P.2d 340 (N.M. 1990). “However, it is not at all clear to us that, after the passage of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, the provisions of Section 66-5-221 were intended to be applicable to all motor vehicle liability policies.”
Raskob v. Sanchez, 970 P.2d 580 (N.M. 1998). “Section 66-5-221 of the Act (since repealed) provides: E.”
Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 888 P.2d 1004 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). “We reaffirm that a driver exclusion agreement pursuant to Sections 66-5-221 and -222 applies to uninsured motorist coverage as well as liability coverage in New Mexico.”
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas., 891 P.2d 538 (N.M. 1995). “Section 66-5-221(A)(2) of the Act provides that motor vehicle liability policies 1 shall insure any person “using any such motor vehicle with the express or implied permission of the named insured.”
Romero v. Pueblo of Sandia/Sandia Casino, 2003 NMCA 137 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). “2d 580 (citing NMSA 1978, § 66-5-221(E)(l) (1983) (repealed effective July 1, 1998)).”
Lucero v. New Mexico Pub. Sch. Ins. Auth., 892 P.2d 598 (N.M. 1995). “We arrived at that conclusion by examining the language of NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-221(A)(2) (Repl.Pamp.1989), which requires an insurer to provide liability coverage in situations in which either the named insured or any permissive driver is operating the vehicle.”
Garza v. Glen Falls Ins., 731 P.2d 363 (N.M. 1986). “Forms for such named drivers exclusion must be substantially similar to the form provided in Section 66-5-222 NMSA 1978.”
Burr v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 359 S.E.2d 626 (W. Va. 1987). “3009 (“named person”); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 66-5-221(K) (“named driver”); Okla.”
Tafoya Ex Rel. Armijo v. W. Farm Bureau Ins., 872 P.2d 358 (N.M. 1994). “II On appeal, we address whether the requirements of the Act were satisfied with respect to the drivers exclusion endorsement.”
Cordova v. Wolfel, 903 P.2d 1390 (N.M. 1995). “; § 66-5-221(A)(2). Cordova argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it determined that, as a matter of law, National is not liable for Wolfel’s negligence.”
Kitchens v. Houston Gen. Ins., 896 P.2d 479 (N.M. 1995). “Nonetheless, Section 66-5-221 refers to a “certified motor vehicle liability policy.”
— N.M. Stat. § 66-5-221(A)(2) — 5 cases
Allstate Ins. v. Jensen, 788 P.2d 340 (N.M. 1990). “However, it is not at all clear to us that, after the passage of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, the provisions of Section 66-5-221 were intended to be applicable to all motor vehicle liability policies.”
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas., 891 P.2d 538 (N.M. 1995). “Section 66-5-221(A)(2) of the Act provides that motor vehicle liability policies 1 shall insure any person “using any such motor vehicle with the express or implied permission of the named insured.”
Lucero v. New Mexico Pub. Sch. Ins. Auth., 892 P.2d 598 (N.M. 1995). “We arrived at that conclusion by examining the language of NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-221(A)(2) (Repl.Pamp.1989), which requires an insurer to provide liability coverage in situations in which either the named insured or any permissive driver is operating the vehicle.”
Cordova v. Wolfel, 903 P.2d 1390 (N.M. 1995). “; § 66-5-221(A)(2). Cordova argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it determined that, as a matter of law, National is not liable for Wolfel’s negligence.”
Kitchens v. Houston Gen. Ins., 896 P.2d 479 (N.M. 1995). “Nonetheless, Section 66-5-221 refers to a “certified motor vehicle liability policy.”
— N.M. Stat. § 66-5-221(D) — 1 case
Lucero v. New Mexico Pub. Sch. Ins. Auth., 892 P.2d 598 (N.M. 1995). “We arrived at that conclusion by examining the language of NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-221(A)(2) (Repl.Pamp.1989), which requires an insurer to provide liability coverage in situations in which either the named insured or any permissive driver is operating the vehicle.”
— N.M. Stat. § 66-5-221(E)(1) — 2 cases
Martinez Ex Rel. Stransky v. Reid, 46 P.3d 1237 (N.M. 2002). “Instead, the Court concluded that Section 66-5-221, which had been repealed but applied to the case at bar, manifested an intent to allow joinder.”
Raskob v. Sanchez, 970 P.2d 580 (N.M. 1998). “Section 66-5-221 of the Act (since repealed) provides: E.”
— N.M. Stat. § 66-5-221(E)(l) — 2 cases
Romero v. Pueblo of Sandia/Sandia Casino, 2003 NMCA 137 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). “2d 580 (citing NMSA 1978, § 66-5-221(E)(l) (1983) (repealed effective July 1, 1998)).”
Raskob v. Sanchez, 970 P.2d 580 (N.M. 1998). “Section 66-5-221 of the Act (since repealed) provides: E.”
— N.M. Stat. § 66-5-221(K) — 4 cases
Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 888 P.2d 1004 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). “We reaffirm that a driver exclusion agreement pursuant to Sections 66-5-221 and -222 applies to uninsured motorist coverage as well as liability coverage in New Mexico.”
Garza v. Glen Falls Ins., 731 P.2d 363 (N.M. 1986). “Forms for such named drivers exclusion must be substantially similar to the form provided in Section 66-5-222 NMSA 1978.”
Burr v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 359 S.E.2d 626 (W. Va. 1987). “3009 (“named person”); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 66-5-221(K) (“named driver”); Okla.”
Tafoya Ex Rel. Armijo v. W. Farm Bureau Ins., 872 P.2d 358 (N.M. 1994). “II On appeal, we address whether the requirements of the Act were satisfied with respect to the drivers exclusion endorsement.”
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.