A. A person’s employment is principally localized in this or another state when:
(1) his employer has a place of business in this or such other state and he regularly works at or from such place of business; or
(2) if Paragraph (1) of this subsection is not applicable, he is domiciled and spends a substantial part of his working time in the service of his employer in this or such other state.
B. An employee whose duties require him to travel regularly in the service of his employer in this and one or more other states may, by written agreement with his employer, provided [provide] that his employment is principally localized in this or another such state, and, unless such other state refuses jurisdiction, such agreement shall be given effect under the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978].
C. As used in Sections 52-1-64 through 52-1-67 NMSA 1978:
(1) “United States” includes only the states of the United States and the District of Columbia;
(2) “state” includes any state of the United States, the District of Columbia or any province of Canada; and
(3) “carrier” includes any insurance company licensed to write workers’ compensation insurance in any state of the United States or any state or provincial fund which insures employers against their liabilities under a workers’ compensation law.
HISTORY:
1953 59-10-33.4, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 241, § 4; 1989, ch. 263, § 42.
Notes to Decisions
Generally.
New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Administration erred in denying benefits to claimant where the extraterritorial coverage provisions extended to his injury at a job site in Arizona because, at the time of his injury, his employment was principally localized in New Mexico. Todacheene v. G & S Masonry, 1993-NMCA-126, 116 N.M. 478, 863 P.2d 1099, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 117 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 116 N.M. 364, 862 P.2d 1223, 1993 N.M. LEXIS 333 (N.M. 1993).
Place of business.
From the relationship between 52-1-67A(1) and (2) NMSA 1978 of the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act, a “place of business” must be something rather substantial, what one might call a “business domicile” or “business home.” Todacheene v. G & S Masonry, 1993-NMCA-126, 116 N.M. 478, 863 P.2d 1099, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 117 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 116 N.M. 364, 862 P.2d 1223, 1993 N.M. LEXIS 333 (N.M. 1993).
Subsection B.
Section 52-1-67B NMSA 1978 allows for an express agreement concerning choice of law and also allows that such an agreement might be enforceable under the statute even in the absence of any express agreement about where the employment is principally localized; thus, in a consolidated case where an employer sought to enforce choice of law provisions in its employees’ contracts, it was necessary for the court to analyze each employee’s case to determine whether the choice of law provision was enforceable. Cawyer v. Continental Express Trucking, 1997-NMCA-008, 122 N.M. 819, 932 P.2d 509, 1996 N.M. App. LEXIS 104 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996).
Time limitations.
For 52-1-67A(2) NMSA 1978 of the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act, to ever provide extraterritorial coverage, the period during which the worker spends a substantial part of his working time in the service of his employer must include either some period of time prior to the accident or a period of time into the future. Todacheene v. G & S Masonry, 1993-NMCA-126, 116 N.M. 478, 863 P.2d 1099, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 117 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 116 N.M. 364, 862 P.2d 1223, 1993 N.M. LEXIS 333 (N.M. 1993).