{ "id": 4250232, "name": "FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christine SANDOVAL and Melissa Carter, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Farmers Insurance v. Sandoval", "decision_date": "2011-04-04", "docket_number": "No. 29,537", "first_page": "654", "last_page": "660", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "149 N.M. 654" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "253 P.3d 944" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "2011-NMCA-051" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "2007-NMSC-015", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 3668998 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" }, { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/141/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "2009-NMSC-050", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4245434 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/147/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 N.M. 662", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1558940 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "665" }, { "page": "205" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/120/0662-01" ] }, { "cite": "923 F.2d 1417", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10548917 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1422" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/923/1417-01" ] }, { "cite": "1998-NMSC-016", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 834335 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/125/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 N.M. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 725416 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "627", "parenthetical": "\"The general rule is that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.\" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)" }, { "page": "27", "parenthetical": "\"The general rule is that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.\" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/115/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "946 P.2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.M. 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 17750 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/124/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "1997-NMCA-100", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 3" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2006-NMCA-060", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 2545248 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 2" }, { "page": "\u00b6 29" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/139/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N.M. 807", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1592846 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "808" }, { "page": "634" }, { "page": "811" }, { "page": "637" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/108/0807-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 N.M. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 716963 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "189" }, { "page": "1342" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/110/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N.M. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 715104 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "180" }, { "page": "665" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/111/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "2006-NMCA-104", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3670463 ], "weight": 12, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 5" }, { "page": "\u00b6 9" }, { "page": "\u00b6 2" }, { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/140/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N.M. 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1594951 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "746" }, { "page": "1376" }, { "page": "747" }, { "page": "1377" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/104/0744-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 N.M. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 711406 ], "weight": 14, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219" }, { "page": "1095" }, { "page": "222" }, { "page": "1098" }, { "page": "223" }, { "page": "1099" }, { "page": "218" }, { "page": "1094" }, { "page": "221" }, { "page": "1097", "parenthetical": "declaring a contractual exclusion void because the injured insured would be entitled to a greater recovery of UIM benefits if she had been hit by an uninsured driver, rather than an underinsured driver" }, { "page": "218" }, { "page": "1093", "parenthetical": "holding that Section 66-5-301 \"will be read into the [insurance] policies and, to the extent that the policy provisions conflict with the statute, the statute prevails\"" }, { "page": "222" }, { "page": "1098", "parenthetical": "noting that an insured cannot recover more than his total damages in UIM benefits" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/103/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N.M. 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 715228 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "156", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "245", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/111/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "2010-NMSC-001", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4245796 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 15" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/147/0678-01" ] }, { "cite": "1998-NMSC-046", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 827320 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 6" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/126/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007-NMCA-088", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3692064 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 7" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/142/0346-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 749, "char_count": 18388, "ocr_confidence": 0.698, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.255097069337892e-08, "percentile": 0.4325124746655114 }, "sha256": "d6fa04cba60c4f310400408b938e321e93a7b7c8c85b19dfb48e8ade77e739ef", "simhash": "1:5b5d6f9470c02aea", "word_count": 2889 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:34.747020+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "WE CONCUR: CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge." ], "parties": [ "FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christine SANDOVAL and Melissa Carter, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWECHSLER, Judge.\n{1} In this appeal, we must determine whether an insurer is entitled to offset an injured insured\u2019s award of underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits by a tortfeasor\u2019s liability policy limits when the insured receives an amount less than policy limits due to a contractual exclusion for punitive damages. In light of the remedial purpose of NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-301 (1983), we conclude that the insurer\u2019s offset is limited to the amount of money actually received by the insured from the tortfeasor. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court.\nBACKGROUND\n{2} The facts are undisputed. On March 19, 2006, Christine Sandoval and Melissa Carter (collectively, Defendants) were involved in an automobile accident with Shawna Chavez, who was driving while intoxicated. As a result of the accident, Sandoval incurred medical expenses in the amount of $2194.74, lost wages in the amount of $444.48, and pain and suffering. Carter incurred medical expenses in the amount of $2213, lost wages in the amount of $1000, and pain and suffering.\n{3} Defendants sought compensatory and punitive damages from Mid-Century Insurance Company (Mid-Century), which insured Chavez\u2019s vehicle for liability coverage in the amount of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. However, the Mid-Century policy explicitly excluded punitive damages from liability coverage. Because Defendants\u2019 compensatory damages are less than $25,000 each, it is anticipated that they will settle their claims against Mid-Century for an amount less than policy limits.\n{4} Defendants filed a UIM claim against Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona (Farmers), which insured Carter\u2019s vehicle for $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. Defendants each sought $30,000 in punitive damages, alleging that Chavez was underinsured with respect to punitive damages. Farmers determined that Defendants were entitled to UIM benefits in the amount of $5000 each, which it calculated by offsetting the policy limits of Defendants\u2019 UIM coverage ($30,000) by the policy limits of the Mid-Century policy ($25,000). Defendants did not dispute that Farmers was entitled to an offset, but claimed that this offset must be based on the amount of money actually received by Defendants in settlement of their claims, rather than the liability limits of the Mid-Century policy.\n{5} Farmers filed a declaratory judgment action in district court to determine the amount of its offset under Section 66-5-301 and the UIM policy. Farmers and Defendants each moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Farmers\u2019 motion and denied Defendants\u2019 motion. Defendants appeal, claiming that an insurer\u2019s offset is \u201climited to the amount of liability proceeds actually available to the injured insureds when that amount is less than the amount of [UIM] coverage.\u201d\nSTANDARD OF REVIEW\n{6} \u201cSummary judgment is proper when the material facts are undisputed and the only remaining issues are questions of law.\u201d Bird v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2007-NMCA-088, \u00b6 7, 142 N.M. 346, 165 P.3d 343. We review a district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment de novo. Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, \u00b6 6, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582.\nSTATUTORY OFFSET\n{7} We begin our analysis with Section 66-5-301(B), which was \u201cdesigned to expand insurance coverage to protect the public from damage or injury caused by other motorists who were not insured [or were underinsured] and could not make the impaired party whole.\u201d Marckstadt v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2010-NMSC-001, \u00b6 15, 147 N.M. 678, 228 P.3d 462 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \u201cBecause we liberally interpret the statute in order to implement its remedial purpose, language in the statute that provides for an exception to uninsured coverage should be construed strictly to protect the insured.\u201d Romero v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 111 N.M. 154, 156, 803 P.2d 243, 245 (1990) (citation omitted). \u201cTo that end, the only limitations on protection are those specifically set out in the statute itself: that the insured be legally entitled to recover damages and that the negligent driver be uninsured\u201d or underinsured. Schmick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 103 N.M. 216, 219, 704 P.2d 1092, 1095 (1985).\n{8} Given the remedial purpose of the statute, our Supreme Court has held that \u201cuninsured motorist coverage includes coverage for punitive damages.\u201d Stewart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 104 N.M. 744, 746, 726 P.2d 1374, 1376 (1986). Punitive damages, which derive from actual damages, \u201c \u2018are as much a part of the potential award under the uninsured motorist statute as damages for bodily injury, and therefore they cannot be contracted away.\u2019\u201d Manzanares v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2006-NMCA-104, \u00b6 5, 140 N.M. 227, 141 P.3d 1281 (quoting Stinbrink v. Farmers Ins. Co., 111 N.M. 179, 180, 803 P.2d 664, 665 (1990)). Accordingly, \u201can insured may recover punitive damages from his insurer if he would be legally entitled to recover them from the uninsured tortfeasor.\u201d Stewart, 104 N.M. at 747, 726 P.2d at 1377.\n{9} However, the amount of punitive damages recovered through an insured\u2019s UIM carrier may not be commensurate with the amount of punitive damages for which a tortfeasor is liable. This is so because \u201cthe Legislature, in defining [a UIM], set the ... maximum on the amount an insured can collect from his [UIM] carrier.\u201d Schmick, 103 N.M. at 222, 704 P.2d at 1098. Specifically, an insured\u2019s recovery is limited to the aggregate amount of uninsured motorist coverage purchased for the insured\u2019s benefit reduced by the statutory offset inherent in Section 66-5-301. See Schmick, 103 N.M. at 223, 704 P.2d at 1099; Manzanares, 2006-NMCA-104, \u00b6 9, 140 N.M. 227, 141 P.3d 1281 (holding that an insured cannot recover punitive damages in excess of UIM coverage minus the insurer\u2019s offset).\n{10} In this ease, we must determine the amount of Farmers\u2019 statutory offset. In Schmick and its progeny, the insureds actually received an amount equal to the liability limits of the tortfeasor and, therefore, the courts did not directly address the question before us. See, e.g., Am. States Ins. Co. v. Frost, 110 N.M. 188, 189, 793 P.2d 1341, 1342 (1990); Fasulo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 108 N.M. 807, 808, 780 P.2d 633, 634 (1989); Schmick, 103 N.M. at 218, 704 P.2d at 1094; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 2006-NMCA-060, \u00b6 2, 139 N.M. 558, 135 P.3d 1277; Manzanares, 2006-NMCA-104, \u00b6 2, 140 N.M. 227, 141 P.3d 1281; Martinez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1997-NMCA-100, \u00b6 3, 124 N.M. 36, 946 P.2d 240. Accordingly, language in those cases stating that an insurer\u2019s offset should be measured by the tortfeasor\u2019s \u201cliability coverage\u201d or, alternately, by the \u201cliability proceeds\u201d received by the insured, is not dispositive. See Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 115 N.M. 622, 627, 857 P.2d 22, 27 (1993) (\u201cThe general rule is that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.\u201d (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).\n{11} Section 66-5-301(B) provides that \u201cuninsured motorist coverage ... shall include underinsured motorist coverage.\u201d Under the statute, an \u201cunderinsured motorist\u201d is \u201can operator of a motor vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance or use of which the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability insurance applicable at the time of the accident is less than the limits of liability under the insured\u2019s [UIM] coverage.\u201d Id. Farmers claims that the statute \u201ccreates and defines UIM insurance in terms of the tortfeasor\u2019s full liability coverage only,\u201d and, therefore, \u201cUIM payments must be offset by the full liability limits of the tortfeasor\u2019s policy.\u201d Defendants respond that, to effectuate the remedial purpose of the statute, the insurer\u2019s offset must be limited to the amount of liability proceeds actually received by the insured.\n{12} Because it is unclear whether a valid contractual exclusion for punitive damages, such as the one at issue in this case, reduces the \u201climits of liability\u201d under the tortfeasor\u2019s policy under Section 66-5-301(B), we consider the statute to be ambiguous. We thus turn to the purpose of the statute in order to discern the Legislature\u2019s intent. See Wilson v. Denver, 1998-NMSC-016, \u00b6 36, 125 N.M. 308, 961 P.2d 153 (\u201cIn order to discern the intent of the Legislature when interpreting an ambiguous statute, we resort to well-accepted rules of statutory construction, always striving to select the rationale that most likely accomplishes the legislative purpose[,] or best fills a void not addressed by the Legislature.\u201d (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).\n{13} As previously explained, the purpose of Section 66-5-301\nis to assure that, in the event of an accident with an underinsured vehicle, an insured motorist entitled to compensation will receive at least the sum certain in underinsurance coverage purchased for his or her benefit. To the extent the amount of other available insurance proceeds from responsible underinsured tortfeasors does not equal or exceed the amount of coverage purchased, the UIM carrier must satisfy the difference.\nFasulo, 108 N.M. at 811, 780 P.2d at 637. In this case, $30,000 in UIM coverage has been purchased for each Defendant\u2019s benefit. To assure that Defendants receive at least this sum certain in coverage, we conclude that Farmers\u2019 offset is limited to the amount of liability proceeds actually received by Defendants from Mid-Century.\n{14} We find support for our conclusion in Gonzales v. Millers Casualty Insurance Co. of Texas, 923 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1991), and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Valencia, 120 N.M. 662, 905 P.2d 202 (Ct.App.1995), which considered whether the UIM benefits of multiple claimants whose total damages exceeded the liability coverage of the tortfeasor\u2019s policy should be calculated based on the tortfeasor\u2019s policy limits, or the amount of liability proceeds actually received by the claimants. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and this Court both concluded \u201cthat New Mexico\u2019s uninsured/underinsured motorist statute should be liberally construed to implement the purpose of the statute\u201d and that \u201crestricting an insured to the policy limits of the tort-feasor\u2019s liability coverage, \u2018rather than the liability proceeds actually available to a given insured [under his or her own policy] would tend to produce the illogical ... situation the legislators sought to avoid.\u2019 \u201d Valencia, 120 N.M. at 665, 905 P.2d at 205 (quoting Gonzales, 923 F.2d at 1422) (alterations in original). As a result,\nin multiple-claimant situations, insured motorists who are covered under an uninsured/underinsured motorist policy and who suffer from injuries resulting from an automobile accident are entitled to collect up to the limit of their underinsurance policy to the extent that their damages exceed the amounts that the tort-feasor\u2019s insurer has previously paid to them.\nId.\n{15} In oral argument before this Court, Farmers argued that Gonzales and Valencia are factually distinguishable from this ease because Defendants seek punitive damages, which \u201cgenerally evoke less compelling concerns\u201d than compensatory damages. Manzanares, 2006-NMCA-104, \u00b6 10, 140 N.M. 227, 141 P.3d 1281. In Manzanares, the plaintiff received a \u201ctotal recovery of $60,000\u201d for bodily injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Id. \u00b62. The tortfeasors\u2019 policies excluded recovery for punitive damages and, therefore, the plaintiff submitted a claim to her own insurer for UIM benefits. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 2-3. The limit of the plaintiffs UIM coverage was $30,000, but the plaintiff argued that \u201cthe tortfeasors should be deemed \u2018uninsured\u2019 or \u2018partially uninsured\u2019 [rather than] \u2018underinsured\u2019[ ] for purposes of punitive damages.\u201d Id. \u00b6\u00b6 3, 6.\n{16} We rejected the plaintiffs invitation to draw a distinction between punitive damages and compensatory damages in Manzanares, noting that \u201cNew Mexico has characterized punitive damages as deriving from actual damages.\u201d Id. \u00b65. Indeed, a claimant \u201cis generally entitled to recover punitive damages under [the claimant\u2019s] UIM coverage\u201d precisely \u201cbecause they are a part of [the claimant\u2019s] bodily injury claim.\u201d Id. Accordingly, we held that the plaintiffs UIM carrier was entitled to an offset in the amount of $60,000, regardless of whether the tortfeasors were uninsured or underinsured, or whether the tortfeasors\u2019 policies excluded payment for punitive damages. Id. \u00b6 9. To the extent that the plaintiff asked this Court to create \u201ca special exception\u201d to the offset provisions for punitive damages, we rejected her claim. Id. \u00b6 10. We observed that it would be \u201cillogical to create a special rule that allows offset of UIM coverage for bodily injury damages, but does not allow offset for punitive damages,\u201d because \u201cpunitive damages generally evoke less compelling concerns.\u201d Id.\n{17} Farmers\u2019 reliance on Manzanares does not translate to this case. In Manzanares, we expressly refused to distinguish between punitive damages and compensatory damages in the context of a UIM claim because punitive damages \u201cstem from bodily injury damages.\u201d Id. Although we noted that \u201cpunitive damages generally evoke less compelling concerns},]\u201d we did so in response to the plaintiffs request to make a special exception to the offset provision for punitive damages only. Id. As in Manzanares, we refuse to formulate a special rule in this ease simply because Defendants seek to recover punitive damages, rather than compensatory damages, under their UIM policy.\n{18} Moreover, \u201c[w]e must take care to avoid adoption of a construction that would render the statute\u2019s application absurd or unreasonable or lead to injustice or contradiction.\u201d State v. Nick R., 2009-NMSC-050, \u00b6 11, 147 N.M. 182, 218 P.3d 868 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If we were to construe Section 66-5-301 to permit an offset in the amount of a tortfeasor\u2019s policy limits, even though the injured insured recovered less than policy limits, it would lead to an anomalous result. Specifically, an injured insured would be entitled to a greater recovery if he or she was in an automobile accident with a totally uninsured driver, rather than an underinsured driver. \u2018We doubt the [L]egislature intended such a result when it enacted the U[I]M statute, and we doubt that our case law interpreting the statute anticipated or would allow such an anomaly.\u201d Jones, 2006-NMCA-060, \u00b6 29, 139 N.M. 558, 135 P.3d 1277 (refusing to allow a UIM carrier a contractual offset because the injured insured would be entitled to a greater recovery if she had been hit by an uninsured driver, rather than an underinsured driver); see Schmick, 103 N.M. at 221, 704 P.2d at 1097 (declaring a contractual exclusion void because the injured insured would be entitled to a greater recovery of UIM benefits if she had been hit by an uninsured driver, rather than an underinsured driver). Accordingly, we decline to construe the statute in such an absurd manner.\nCONTRACTUAL OFFSET\n{19} Farmers next claims that it is entitled to a contractual offset in the amount of the tortfeasor\u2019s liability limits under the plain language of the UIM policy, which provides that \u201c[t]he amount of [u]ninsured [m]otorist [coverage we will pay ... shall be reduced by the amount of any other bodily injury coverage available to any party held to be liable for the accident.\u201d (Emphasis omitted.) Farmers argues that $25,000 in liability coverage was \u201cavailable\u201d under the Mid-Century policy and, therefore, Defendants\u2019 UIM benefits may be reduced by this amount. Defendants respond that coverage for punitive damages was not \u201cavailable\u201d under the Mid-Century policy, only coverage for compensatory damages. Alternatively, Defendants claim that the contractual offset is void because it violates the remedial legislative policy underlying Section 66-5-301.\n{20} \u201cOnce uninsured motorist coverage is purchased, the insurance consumer is entitled to secure the full extent of the benefit which the law requires to be offered. Attempts by insurers to reduce this benefit by exclusion clauses are repugnant to the public policy of protecting persons injured in automobile accidents.\u201d Boradiansky v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2007-NMSC-015, \u00b6 10, 141 N.M. 387, 156 P.3d 25 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, contractual exclusions that conflict with the mandatory requirements of Section 66-5-301 are void. Boradiansky, 2007-NMSC-015, \u00b6 10, 141 N.M. 387, 156 P.3d 25; see Schmick, 103 N.M. at 218, 704 P.2d at 1093 (holding that Section 66-5-301 \u201cwill be read into the [insurance] policies and, to the extent that the policy provisions conflict with the statute, the statute prevails\u201d).\n{21} Under Section 66-5-301, an injured insured whose total damages exceed the liability proceeds received from the tortfeasor is entitled to recover the difference from the insured\u2019s UIM carrier, at least up to the limits of his UIM coverage. Accordingly, Farmers\u2019 contractual offset is void to the extent that it purports to limit Defendants\u2019 recovery of UIM benefits to an amount less than the limits of their UIM coverage ($30,-000 each), minus an offset in the amount of the liability proceeds actually received by Defendants under the Mid-Century policy.\nCONCLUSION\n{22} We conclude that Farmers\u2019 offset is limited to the amount of liability proceeds actually received by Defendants under the Mid-Century policy. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court granting Farmers\u2019 motion for summary judgment.\n{23} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nWE CONCUR: CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge.\n. We note that the amount of punitive damages to which Defendants are entitled has not yet been determined. For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that Defendants are entitled to recover at least $30,000 in punitive damages. See Schmick, 103 N.M. at 222, 704 P.2d at 1098 (noting that an insured cannot recover more than his total damages in UIM benefits).", "type": "majority", "author": "WECHSLER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "O\u2019Brien & Ulibarri, P.C., Daniel J. O\u2019Brien, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.", "Whitener Law Firm, P.A., Thomas M. Allison, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "2011-NMCA-051\n253 P.3d 944\nFARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christine SANDOVAL and Melissa Carter, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 29,537.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 4, 2011.\nO\u2019Brien & Ulibarri, P.C., Daniel J. O\u2019Brien, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.\nWhitener Law Firm, P.A., Thomas M. Allison, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellants." }, "file_name": "0654-01", "first_page_order": 680, "last_page_order": 686 }