After a party to an arbitration proceeding involving an uninsured motorist receives notice of an award, the party may make a motion to the district court for an order confirming the award, at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to Section 44-7A-21 or 44-7A-25 NMSA 1978 or is vacated pursuant to Section 44-7A-24 NMSA 1978.
History: 1978 Comp., § 66-5-303, enacted by Laws 2003, ch. 427, § 1.
Cross references. — For procedures governing administrative appeals to the district court, see Rule 1-074 NMRA.
Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 2003, ch. 427, § 1 repealed 66-5-303 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 18, § 4, and enacted a new section, effective June 20, 2003.
Unilateral demand not sufficient where policy requires bilateral agreement. — New Mexico law does not require arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim upon the unilateral demand of either the insurer or the insured where the insurance policy states that disputes regarding whether the insured is entitled to receive payment under the policy, or the amount of payment due, will be submitted to arbitration only if both the insurer and insured consent. McMillian v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2004-NMSC-002, 135 N.M. 17, 84 P.3d 65.
Binding arbitration not compelled. — Where the uninsured motorist endorsement provides for arbitration only upon the consent of both parties, and where the superintendent of insurance has approved such an endorsement, New Mexico law does not compel binding arbitration. McMillian v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2004-NMSC-002, 135 N.M. 17, 84 P.3d 65.
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.
Law reviews. — For note, "Uninsured Motorist Arbitration," see 3 N.M.L. Rev. 220 (1973).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Validity and enforceability of provisions for binding arbitration, and waiver thereof, 24 A.L.R.3d 1325.
Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage: enforceability of policy provision limiting appeals from arbitration, 23 A.L.R.5th 801.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.