 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. Wells Fargo Armored Services Corp.3/20/2000
coverage with NCCI establishes substantial compliance. We assume without deciding that the Administrator considered this method of filing acceptable in 1994. We note that the proof of coverage in question shows the named insured as Baker Industries and makes no mention of either Wells Fargo or Borg- Warner, the parent company of Wells Fargo. As a result, it is not surprising that the Administration informed Ken Peterson that it had no record of insurance for Wells Fargo or Borg-Warner. We fail to understand how the NCCI certificate informed the employees of Wells Fargo or their dependents of the fact that Wells Fargo had obtained compensation insurance if the Administration could not ascertain coverage from the same information. Thus, in these circumstances, the filing with the NCCI would not suffice to inform Wells Fargo's employees of coverage and was not, therefore, substantial compliance with the filing requirement.
2. November 15, 1995 Filing with Administration
We next address the question of whether Wells Fargo substantially complied with the filing requirement by filing a certificate of coverage with the Administration on November 15, 1995. In the trial court, Wells Fargo argued that Plaintiff did not file the negligence action in this case until December 5, 1995, and therefore the November 1995 filing constituted substantial compliance. In response, Plaintiff argued that the lawsuit was filed in February 1995 and her motion to amend the complaint was filed in September 1995, which related back to the initial filing. See Rule 1-015(C) NMRA 2000. We agree with Plaintiff that Wells Fargo's November 1995 filing was not substantial compliance, although for somewhat different reasons.
We note initially that all the cases that have found substantial compliance with the filing requirement have involved significantly shorter periods of time than in this case. Compare Mirabal v. International Minerals & Chem. Corp., 77 N.M. 576, 578, 425 P.2d 740, 742 (1967) (filing forty days after accident and eight months before any suit filed); Shope, 92 N.M. at 509, 590 P.2d at 657 (filing roughly one month after the accident and roughly six weeks before common law claim filed); Quintana, 80 N.M. at 589, 458 P.2d at 841 (filing seventy- six days after accident and some (unspecified) amount of time before suit filed); with Security Trust v. Smith, 93 N.M. 35, 37-38, 596 P.2d 248, 250-51 (1979) (holding that filing proof of coverage eleven months after the accident and six weeks after common law action commenced was not substantial compliance); Montano v. Williams, 89 N.M. 86, 87-88, 547 P.2d 569, 570-71 (Ct. App. 1976), aff'd, 89 N.M. 252, 550 P.2d 264 (1976) (failing to file proof of insurance or produce policy during ensuing common law litigation was not substantial compliance). Moreover, in none of those cases has the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint after suit was filed.
As we have stated, in addition to notice, the purpose of the filing requirement is to provide information to the injured worker. In circumstances of death, this purpose extends to the worker's dependents. In this case, Wells Fargo did not meet this informational purpose solely by satisfying the technical filing requirement in November 1995. It produced insurance documents for Plaintiff in September 1995 only after being ordered by the trial court to produce evidence of its compliance with the Act's insurance provisions.
The documents that Well Fargo's produced included pages of a Continental Insurance Company (Continental) policy that included workers' compensation insurance applicable in New Mexico during 1993- 1994. The first page shows the insured as Bak
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|