What a New Standard Would Mean for Insurers and Homeowners in New Mexico

The argument turned on the real‑world effects: defense counsel warned that reviving older claims could require hearings on prejudice and impose unexpected liabilities, while plaintiff counsel said practical evidentiary limits and notice requirements would constrain revival to more recent matters.

Plaintiff counsel described typical claim handling: a policyholder gives notice, the insurer opens an investigation and records a date of loss. Counsel argued that for claims many years old, missing witnesses and lost inspection opportunities make success unlikely even if the Court adopts a prejudice rule. "If you're talking about a policy that occurred 25 years ago, it would be highly unlikely that you would be able to establish" the evidence, counsel said.

Defense counsel countered that insurers set rates and prices based in part on the settled enforcement environment and that changing the standard retroactively could create unanticipated exposures. The Court pressed both sides on how to tailor relief — purely prospective, modified prospective, or limited retroactivity — to balance fairness and finality.