Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

RHONDA MONTOYA v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
1:11-cv-00605 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Rhonda Montoya
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of New Mexico

"III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NM INSURANCE CODE

13. Plaintiff incorporates the above stated paragraphs of her Complaint as if set forth in full herein.

14. Defendant ACE, and/or the actions of its agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors or department head, violated ACE's statutory duties imposed upon it by the NM Insurance Code (Sections 59A-16-1 through 59A-16-30), and ACE has engaged in acts and practices prohibited by said statutory provisions including but not limited to:

a. Misrepresenting to insureds pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverage at issue;
b. Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims from insureds arising under policies;
c. Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of insureds' claims arising under policies';
d. Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims of insureds within a reasonable time after proof of loss requirements under the policy have been completed and submitted by the insured;
e. Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of an insured's claims in which liability has become reasonably clear;
f. Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under the policy by offering substantially less (in this case nothing) less the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insureds;
g. Failing to promptly provide an insured a reasonable explanation of the basis relied on in the policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim;
h. Otherwise acting in bad faith or in an unfair and/or deceptive manner or practice prohibited by law or public policy.

15. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Rhonda Montoya was an insured and/or member of the class of general public for whose benefit Sec. 59A-16-1 et seq. was enacted.

16. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant ACE's failure to comply with Sec. 59A-16-1 et seq., and by Defendant ACE's actions, policies, and omissions, and/or those of Defendant ACE's agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors or department head, Plaintiff Rhonda Montoya has suffered injury and damages.

17. Defendant ACE's actions and/or omissions were knowingly and intentionally committed, permitted, acquiesced, and/or ratified by ACE's managerial agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors or department head, and with prior knowledge thereof.

18. Defendant ACE's actions and omissions were in violation of NM case law and statutes, were made intentionally and knowingly, were committed in bad faith, and/or were malicious, reckless, wanton or oppressive, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial in order to punish Defendant and to deter those similarly situated.

19. Plaintiff Rhonda Montoya has had to obtain the services of an attorney to pursue this matter. NMSA Sec. 59A-16-30 grants a private right of action to Plaintiff in district court to address and to remedy such violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover her actual damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees associated herewith.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as against Defendant for compensatory and punitive damages, together with pre-judgment interest, postjudgment interest, costs, attorney fees, and for such other and further relief that may be allowed to Plaintiff, and for all further relief that the Court deems just and proper. 111. INSURANCE BAD FAITH/UNFAIR PRACTICES.

20. Plaintiff incorporates the above stated paragraphs of her Complaint as if set forth in full herein.

21. Defendant's failure and/or refusal to resolve, negotiate settlement, and/or to respond to Plaintiff Rhonda Montoya's settlement demand in a meaningful and timely manner are not supported by law or fact, and place the interests of Defendant ACE before and above the rights and interests of the Plaintiff Rhonda Montoya.

22. Moreover, Defendant ACE's position that UI/UIM coverage is not available to Plaintiff Rhonda Montoya is contrary to New Mexico law, and which law was known, or should have been known, to Defendant ACE when it denied Plaintiff Rhonda Montoya's settlement demand.

23. Defendant ACE's failure and/or refusal to comply with NM law regarding UI/UIM coverage constitutes further bad faith on the part of Defendant ACE, and ACE has committed unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of NMSA Sec. 57-12-1 et seq.

24. Defendant ACE's actions and omissions, and specifically including but not limited to its delay in responding to Plaintiff Rhonda Montoya's settlement demand, and in its denial of Plaintiff Rhonda Montoya's settlement demand, were knowingly and intentionally committed, permitted, acquiesced, and/or ratified by ACE's managerial agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors or department head, and with prior knowledge thereof.

25. Defendant ACE's actions and omissions were in bad faith, and/or were malicious, reckless, wanton or oppressive, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial in order to punish Defendant and to deter those similarly situated.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as against Defendant for compensatory and punitive damages, together with pre-judgment interest, postjudgment interest, costs, attorney fees, and for all such other and further relief that may be allowed to Plaintiff, and for all further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

IV. PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

26. Plaintiff incorporates the above stated paragraphs of her Complaint as if set forth in full herein.

27. Defendant ACE's actions and omissions were knowingly and intentionally committed, permitted, acquiesced, and/or ratified by ACE's managerial agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors or department head, and with prior knowledge thereof.

28. Defendant ACE's actions and omissions were malicious, reckless, wanton or oppressive, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial in order to punish Defendant and to deter those similarly situated.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as against Defendant for compensatory and punitive damages, together with pre-judgment interest, postjudgment interest, costs and for all such other and further relief that may be allowed to Plaintiff, and for all further relief that the Court deems just and proper."

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.