Vasquez v. American Cas. Co. of Reading
2017 NMSC 3
| N.M. | 2016Background
- Andrew Vasquez, a Coronado Wrecking employee, was killed at work when a steel beam slid off a coworker’s unattended forklift.
- Vasquez’s estate collected workers’ compensation benefits and uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under Vasquez’s personal auto policy.
- Vasquez’s estate sought UM benefits under Coronado’s commercial auto policy issued by American Casualty.
- American Casualty denied coverage, arguing Vasquez was not "legally entitled to recover damages" from Coronado because the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) provides the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries.
- The federal district court certified the question to the New Mexico Supreme Court: whether an employee injured by a coworker operating an employer-owned vehicle is a person "legally entitled to recover damages" under the UM statute.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court answered: no—when injury is caused by an employer or its representative, the WCA exclusivity bars being "legally entitled to recover damages" for UM statute purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employee injured by a coworker operating an employer-owned vehicle is a person "legally entitled to recover damages" under the UM statute | Vasquez’s estate: UM statute’s protective purpose should allow recovery; Draper allows retention of UM benefits even when employer paid premiums | American Casualty: WCA exclusivity bars suits against employer/representative, so plaintiff is not "legally entitled" to recover from the employer/tortfeasor | Held: No. WCA provides exclusive remedy for workplace injuries caused by employer or its representative, so plaintiff is not "legally entitled to recover damages" for UM statute purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ovitz, 117 N.M. 547, 873 P.2d 979 (1994) (held claimant was not "legally entitled" to recover noneconomic damages under UM statute where another jurisdiction’s no-fault law barred suit)
- Draper v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 116 N.M. 775, 867 P.2d 1157 (1994) (permitted employee injured by a third-party motorist to retain UM benefits over WC where employer paid premiums; distinguished here because tortfeasor was a coworker)
- Continental Ins. Co. v. Fahey, 106 N.M. 603, 747 P.2d 249 (1987) (recognized that legislature did not intend WC to preclude other recoveries available to injured workers)
- Boradiansky v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 141 N.M. 387, 156 P.3d 25 (2007) (interpreting UM entitlement in the context of policy exclusions and Tort Claims Act limits; factually distinguishable)
- Chavez v. S.E.D. Labs., 129 N.M. 794, 14 P.3d 532 (2000) (recognized statutory employer reimbursement framework for UM benefits paid under employer‑paid policies)
- Salazar v. Torres, 141 N.M. 559, 158 P.3d 449 (2007) (describing the WCA’s balance of quick remedies for employees and immunity/predictability for employers)