"Evidence of financial responsibility," as used in the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, means evidence of the ability to respond in damages for liability, on account of accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of the evidence, arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a vehicle of a type subject to registration under the laws of New Mexico, in the following amounts:

A. twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident;

B. subject to this limit for one person, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident;

C. ten thousand dollars ($10,000) because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident; and

D. if evidence is in the form of a surety bond or a cash deposit, the total amount shall be sixty thousand dollars ($60,000).

History: 1953 Comp., § 64-5-206, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 282; 1978 Comp., § 66-5-206, recompiled as 1978 Comp., § 66-5-208 by Laws 1983, ch. 318, §§ 7, 9.

Repeals. — Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 42, repealed former 66-5-208 NMSA 1978, relating to proof required upon certain convictions, effective January 1, 1984.

Private right of action for third parties. — Beyond the general policy of the Insurance Code to protect anyone injured by unfair insurance practices, a private right of action for third parties is consistent with the specific policy of the New Mexico Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act. Hovet v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2004-NMSC-010, 135 N.M. 397, 89 P.3d 69.

A policy covering insurance for the future pursuant to former provisions constituted proof of a driver's future financial responsibility necessary to his continued operation of a vehicle. Larson v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co., 1968-NMSC-160, 79 N.M. 562, 446 P.2d 210, overruled on other grounds by Estep v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1985-NMSC-069, 103 N.M. 105, 703 P.2d 882.

Tort-feasor driver whose policy limits were statutory minimum was not an uninsured motorist, so passengers of other car who divided up tort-feasor's insurance equally failed to recover under their host's uninsured motorist clause. The court also said that the legislative intent in providing limits of liability for bodily injury of $10,000 each person, and $20,000 each accident was not that each of the three passengers get $10,000, but to require $20,000 for each accident, and the division of this by three was the proper allocation. Chafin v. Aetna Ins. Co., 550 F.2d 575 (10th Cir. 1976).

No separate limit for loss of consortium. — Because New Mexico's financial responsibility statutes do not establish separate limits for loss of consortium claims, clause in insurance policy requiring insurer to furnish statutory limits for such claims was not triggered. Nollen v. Reynolds, 1998-NMCA-108, 125 N.M. 387, 962 P.2d 633.

Construction of motor vehicle liability insurance policy provision. — A limited de novo appeal provision in an insurance contract violates public policy and is therefore void. Unequal access to an appeal is unenforceable. Padilla v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2003-NMSC-011, 133 N.M. 661, 68 P.3d 901.

Liability in a no-fault state. — A passenger injured in an automobile accident in Hawaii was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits since Hawaii's no-fault statutes prohibited collection of noneconomic damages; it was not a lack of insurance that restricted liability, rather it was the law of Hawaii that had that effect. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ovitz, 1994-NMSC-047, 117 N.M. 547, 873 P.2d 979.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 7A Am. Jur. 2d Automobiles and Highway Traffic §§ 156, 160.