Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Auto Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Insurance industry opposes change to underinsured motorist offsets; committee fails to advance bill
Summary
Committee debate focused on eliminating offsets that reduce underinsured motorist coverage; insurers said premiums could rise sharply, proponents said the change simply ensures consumers receive coverage they paid for. A do‑not‑pass motion failed and the bill did not advance out of committee.
The House Commerce & Economic Development Committee considered a substitute of House Bill 97, which would change how underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage is applied in New Mexico, and ultimately did not advance the bill.
The sponsor described the substitute as removing the offset that currently reduces a driver’s underinsured motorist recovery by the at‑fault driver’s liability coverage. The sponsor said the change “makes it so drivers who carry underinsured… are actually receiving the benefit of that underinsured coverage,” and that the committee substitute removed a prior mandate to require coverage.
An insurance‑plaintiffs attorney who testified as an expert, Andrea Harris, told the committee the current statute renders much UIM coverage “illusory” because an injured insured’s UIM limit is offset by the at‑fault driver’s liability limits; she summarized the policy goal: “That's insurance that you're paying for. That's insurance that you should be getting.”
Industry witnesses strongly opposed the change. Anne Conway, representing State Farm, said the change would raise premiums and presented an insurer estimate: “we calculate that just on the coverage, this would be an increase of approximately 20% … taking away the existing law with respect to offsets could be up to … 63 percent, I'm sorry, for many of our policyholders.” Jason Espinosa of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies said the prohibition on offsets “will only exacerbate the uninsured motorist population condition in New Mexico and likely increase the number of uninsured drivers.”
Other opposition came from the New Mexico Business Coalition and several insurance agents who said the state’s larger problem is uninsured drivers. Proponents said the substitute no longer mandates coverage and instead ensures that customers who purchase UIM actually receive the limits they buy.
After discussion the committee took a roll call on a motion that included committee substitute language; the clerk announced a final tally of 5 votes yes and 6 votes no on the motion and declared that the bill did not pass the committee. The committee record shows the substitute was considered but not advanced from Commerce & Economic Development.
