{
  "id": 720236,
  "name": "Cathi RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA and/or Mid-Century Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Richardson v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Arizona",
  "decision_date": "1991-05-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 19286",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "112 N.M. 73"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "811 P.2d 571"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "109 N.M. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1590257
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/109/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2767584
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.M. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1573153
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "68"
        },
        {
          "page": "606"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/94/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N.M. 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        708112
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "401"
        },
        {
          "page": "176"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/106/0399-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 362,
    "char_count": 6319,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5655182551393895e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6776503186093089
    },
    "sha256": "045e41a598b2078b087db057b76304f51af2521dc33a09778fd3f95433f4d7c8",
    "simhash": "1:01dcdaaeb6e487fb",
    "word_count": 963
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:39.380170+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "RANSOM, and BACA, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Cathi RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA and/or Mid-Century Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nFRANCHINI, Justice.\nThe single issue presented on appeal is whether appellant, Cathi Richardson, as a permissive user of an insured automobile covered by one of three policies of insurance issued by appellee, Farmers Insurance Company (Farmers), can \u201cstack\u201d the three coverages to pay for damages resulting from the negligence of an underinsured motorist. Each policy defined the \u201climit of liability\u201d as the total limits for each separate underinsured motorist premium paid \u201cunder this or other policies issued by [Farmers].\u201d The policies did not restrict the limit of liability to the named insured, family members, or \u201cClass I\u201d insureds. Given the language of the insurance contracts written by Farmers, we find this case presents a question as to the limit of liability under the policies rather than a question of \u201cClass I\u201d or \u201cClass II\u201d stacking. We reverse the trial court and find Richardson to be an \u201cinsured person\u201d entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits to the limit of liability provided in each of the Farmers\u2019 policies then in force.\nPrior to July 24, 1986, Farmers issued three policies of automobile insurance to Howard Mickelson. Mickelson paid three separate uninsured/underinsured motorist premiums for three separate policies covering three separate automobiles. Each policy contained coverage for damages arising from the acts of underinsured motorists with limits of $25,000 per person. All three policies contained the following endorsement:\nIf more than one premium is paid for uninsured motorists under this or other policies issued by the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, the limit of liability will be the total limits for each separate uninsured motorists premium.\nOn July 24, 1986, Richardson, with the owner\u2019s permission, was driving one of Mickelson\u2019s vehicles insured under one of Farmers\u2019 policies. On that date, Richardson was rear ended by another driver, Castillo, who had $25,000 coverage for public liability under his own insurance policy. Richardson sustained a severe back injury, resulting in back surgery that was unsuccessful. Her damages exceeded $95,000. Richardson settled for $25,000 with Castillo. She collected $25,000 underinsured motorist coverage on the Farmers\u2019 policy insuring the Mickelson automobile she was driving. She then sought to recover $50,-000 more from Farmers by \u201cstacking\u201d the underinsured coverages remaining under the Mickelson policies insuring the other two automobiles that were not being driven by Richardson at the time of the collision. Farmers denied coverage, asserting that Richardson could not \u201cstack\u201d the policies because she was neither a member of the Mickelson family, nor a named insured under the remaining two policies.\nRichardson then filed suit for a declaratory judgment seeking to \u201cstack\u201d the remaining coverages. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court determined that under its view of prevailing New Mexico law, Richardson was not permitted to \u201cstack\u201d coverages as a matter of law and granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers and against Richardson. This appeal followed.\nTo decide this case we must first look to the Farmers' policies involved and determine if they are ambiguous. The question of whether an ambiguity exists is a question of law to be decided by the court. Levenson v. Mobley, 106 N.M. 399, 401, 744 P.2d 174, 176 (1987). A contract is deemed ambiguous only if it is reasonably and fairly susceptible of different constructions. Vickers v. North Am. Land Devs. Inc., 94 N.M. 65, 68, 607 P.2d 603, 606 (1980). The three Farmers\u2019 policies at issue are unambiguous.\nLooking at the plain language of the three policies and the definitions of insured contained therein, it is clear that Richardson is an \u201cinsured person.\u201d Farmers\u2019 policies define \u201cinsured personfs]\u201d to include \u201c[a]ny other person while occupying your insured car.\u201d The only qualification in the policies\u2019 language relative to underinsured motorist\u2019s benefits is that the claimant be an \u201cinsured person.\u201d Further, Farmers contracted to pay \u201call sums which an insured person is legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle.\u201d Farmers specifically permitted \u201cstacking\u201d their policies for the benefit of any insured person by defining the limit of liability to be the total limits for each separate underinsured motorist premium paid \u201cunder this or other policies issued by Farmers Insurance Group of Companies.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nRichardson was an \u201cinsured person\u201d as defined by the Farmers\u2019 policy covering the automobile she was permissively driving. She is entitled to \u201cstack\u201d the underinsured motorist\u2019s benefits in all three policies by the unambiguous terms contained therein. This court must enforce the clear and unambiguous language of Farmers\u2019 policies. Absent ambiguity, provisions of contract need only be applied, rather than construed or interpreted. McKinney v. Davis, 84 N.M. 352, 503 P.2d 332 (1972). The policies are written to cover \u201cinsured persons\u201d for uninsured/under-insured benefits, including persons with Richardson\u2019s characteristics, and to permit \u201cstacking\u201d of all three policies by \u201cinsured persons.\u201d\nRichardson has suffered over $95,000 in damages as a result of an underinsured driver\u2019s negligence. The legislature intended that she be placed in the same position, with regard to recovering those damages, as if the tortfeasor were fully insured. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co. v. Marin, 109 N.M. 533, 787 P.2d 452 (1990).\nTherefore, enforcing these policies as written, the trial court\u2019s granting of Farmers\u2019 motion for summary judgment is reversed, and Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted. Richardson is permitted to \u201cstack\u201d the coverages in all three Farmers\u2019 policies to the total limit of liability provided by the unambiguous terms of the insurance contracts.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nRANSOM, and BACA, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "FRANCHINI, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David H. Pearlman, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Civerolo, Hansen & Wolf, William P. Gralow and Stephen C. Ross, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "811 P.2d 571\nCathi RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA and/or Mid-Century Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 19286.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMay 21, 1991.\nRehearing Denied June 12, 1991.\nDavid H. Pearlman, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nCiverolo, Hansen & Wolf, William P. Gralow and Stephen C. Ross, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-01",
  "first_page_order": 107,
  "last_page_order": 109
}