Herrera v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1993
• Docket Number: No. 20680,20680
• Citation: 846 P.2d 1066,115 N.M. 57,1993 NMSC 8
• Parties: Armando and Rebecca HERRERA, Parents and Next Friends of Amanda Herrera, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOUNTAIN STATES MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, a New Mexico corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 1066

846 P.2d 1066

115 N.M. 57

Armando and Rebecca HERRERA, Parents and Next Friends of Amanda Herrera, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOUNTAIN STATES MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, a New Mexico corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20680.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 20, 1993.

[115 N.M. 58] Flinn Wold Attorneys, Alexander A. Wold, Jr., Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris and Sisk, Geoffrey D. Rieder, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee.

OPINION

RANSOM, Chief Justice.

Amanda Herrera was injured in an automobile accident while occupying a motor vehicle owned by her parents and operated by her mother. Amanda's parents, Armando and Rebecca Herrera, brought suit as Amanda's next friend against Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company to recover uninsured motorist benefits under a policy purchased by Armando's employer, Rader Awning and Upholstering, Inc. Rader was the named insured in the policy. The schedule of automobiles and coverages contained in the Mountain States policy listed four company trucks, and the Herreras sought to stack the uninsured motorist coverage under each of those four vehicles. Recovery, therefore, was dependent upon Amanda being a class-one insured. See Gamboa v. Allstate Ins. Co., 104 N.M. 756, 758, 726 P.2d 1386, 1388 (1986) (class-one coverage not limited to occupancy of insured vehicle).

The Herreras asserted that, since the named insured as stated in the policy was a corporation, each of the thirty-two employees of the corporation was necessarily a named insured for bodily injury coverage and that, since Amanda was a resident of the household of her named insured father, she also was a class-one insured. "Insured means: (1) the named insured as stated in the policy [e.g., Armando Herrera as an employee of the named insured] and, while residents of the same household, the spouse of any such named insured and relatives of either * * *." The trial court disagreed and entered judgment declaring that Amanda was not an insured. She appeals. We affirm.

Horne not controlling. The Herreras argue that their case is controlled by Horne v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 109 N.M. 786, 791 P.2d 61 (1990). The insurance policy at issue in Horne defined class-one insureds as "You or any family member." The named insured was a corporation, New Mexico Security Patrol, Inc., which was equivalent under the policy to "you." Because the rider for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage was worded for family and individual coverage, the majority in Horne found the definition of class-one insureds to be ambiguous. Construing the ambiguity against the insurer, a majority of this Court held that Horne, as an employee of New Mexico Security Patrol, Inc., was included within the definition of "You or any family member." The Herreras argue that employee Horne was included within the term "you" and that, on the same rationale relied upon by the Court in Horne, Armando Herrera should be included within the terms "named insured as stated in the policy" because of his employment status with Rader. Therefore, argue the Herreras, Amanda was also a class-one insured as defined in the policy: "the named insured as stated in the policy [i.e., her father] and, while residents of the same household, the spouse of any such named insured and relatives of either [i.e., Amanda]."

The Herreras' argument fails, however, because in Horne the resolution of the ambiguity was not that employee Horne was included within the meaning of "you"; rather, it was that Horne was included within the meaning of "any family member." In Horne, this Court specifically followed the reasoning in an Ohio case that held that "you" referred to the...