Romero v. Board of County Commissioners, 150 N.M. 59

Romero, a Taos County employee, injured driving a county vehicle; not at fault; settled with other driver’s policy limits and workers’ comp.
County’s insurance is provided through the New Mexico Association of Counties via a multi-line pool for property/liability; UM/UIM coverage was not included in that pool.
Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment seeking UM/UIM coverage under §66-5-301(A) and to bind the Association to pay.
District court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling the County had no UM/UIM obligation and the Association was immune.
Plaintiff appeals the denial of her motion and the court’s construction of the statutory relationship between §66-5-301(A) and the pooling mechanism.
Court addresses whether §66-5-301(A) applies to the Association and, if so, whether the County/Association waived UM/UIM coverage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §66-5-301(A) apply to the Association of Counties for UM/UIM coverage?	Romero argues the Association must provide UM/UIM because §66-5-301(A) requires coverage unless rejected.	The Association’s pooling is exempt from insurance statutes; §66-5-301(A) does not require it to provide UM/UIM.	No, §66-5-301(A) does not apply to the Association.

Romero v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 111 N.M. 154 (1990) (public policy; uninsured motorist coverage part of policy unless rejected)
Dewitt v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 146 N.M. 453, 212 P.3d 341 (2009) (use of pari materia and statutory construction to ascertain legislative intent)
Meiboom v. Watson, 128 N.M. 536, 994 P.2d 1154 (2000) (appellate affirmation on grounds raised below; in pari materia context)
State v. Davis, 134 N.M. 172, 74 P.3d 1064 (2003) (statutory interpretation; harmonization of related statutes)
Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 149 N.M. 162, 245 P.3d 1214 (2010) (primary goal is to determine legislative intent; liberal reading of UM/UIM statute)