A. Judgments herein referred to shall, for the purpose of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act only, be deemed satisfied when:

(1) twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) has been credited upon any judgment or judgments rendered in excess of that amount because of bodily injury to or death of one person as the result of any one accident;

(2) subject to the limit of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) because of bodily injury to or death of one person, the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) has been credited upon any judgment or judgments rendered in excess of that amount because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons as the result of any one accident; or

(3) ten thousand dollars ($10,000) has been credited upon any judgment or judgments rendered in excess of that amount because of injury to or destruction of property of others as a result of any one accident.

B. However, payments made in settlements of any claims because of bodily injury, death or property damage arising from the accident shall be credited in reduction of the amounts provided for in this section.

History: 1953 Comp., § 64-5-222, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 298; 1978 Comp., § 66-5-222, recompiled as 1978 Comp., § 66-5-215 by Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 15.

Repeals. — Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 42, repealed former 66-5-215 NMSA 1978, relating to suspension for nonpayment of judgment, effective January 1, 1984.

"Property". — The word "property", as that term is used in this section and in the uninsured motorist statute, included coverage of a house damaged when an uninsured motorist negligently drove his vehicle so as to cause damage to the house. Richards v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 1986-NMSC-021, 104 N.M. 47, 716 P.2d 238.

Policy held ambiguous. — Where on its face, a limitation clause appears to limit liability for bodily injury to the statutory minimums per person or per occurrence, but nowhere in the contract is there any mention of the effect of multiple premiums paid under one policy insuring more than one vehicle, the policy is ambiguous. Lopez v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., Inc., 1982-NMSC-034, 98 N.M. 166, 646 P.2d 1230.

Arbitration award provision valid. — 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.

Arbitration provision providing for limited de novo appeal substantively unconscionable. — The limited de novo appeal provision in an insurance contract, providing for mandatory arbitration which would be binding on both parties for any award of damages not exceeding the limits of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act but providing for de novo appeal by either party of awards over that amount, violates public policy and is void as substantively unconscionable. Padilla v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2003-NMSC-011, 133 N.M. 661, 68 P.3d 901.