The New Mexico Supreme Court heard argument in Rodriguez v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance on whether a shortened "time‑to‑sue" provision in a homeowners policy may be enforced only if the insurer shows a substantial showing of prejudice. Plaintiff counsel urged the Court to require insurers to demonstrate substantial prejudice before the clause can bar coverage.
"We would like the court to issue ... finding that the ... violation ... should accompany a factor of a showing of substantial Prejudice," plaintiff counsel said during argument, framing the question as whether Sanchez should be overruled and Whelan/Weyland principles applied to real‑property policies. The bench repeatedly questioned counsel about when a claim accrues — the date of loss versus the date of discovery — and how that accrual question differs from a separate prejudice inquiry.
Counsel for the plaintiff told the Court that insurers "can shorten the time period as to when you bring suit," but argued that shortening alone should not permit insurers to avoid coverage unless they show prejudice from the policyholder's delay. Justices pressed on whether shifting to a prejudice requirement would destabilize settled expectations and what, if any, retroactive effect a decision should have under Beavers factors for retroactivity.
Defense counsel warned that retroactive application could revive stale claims and impose unpriced liabilities on insurers, emphasizing the interests of finality and certainty in commercial relations. After extended questioning about comparative precedent (including Roberts Oil and Arizona decisions) and doctrinal distinctions between notice/cooperation provisions and time‑to‑sue clauses, the Court thanked counsel and deemed the matter submitted; an opinion will follow.
The case centers on the interaction among Sanchez, Roberts Oil, and Whelan (Weyland) precedent and could change how courts treat shortened suit periods in New Mexico insurance contracts.