Purchasing auto insurance requires a certain level of trust. You pay the premium, get the paperwork, put the card in your glove compartment, and quietly assume that the coverage you paid for will cover you in the event of an accident, an uninsured driver running a red light, or a hit-and-run in a parking lot. The majority of people never find out if that assumption is true. At the worst times, some people do. Occasionally, the discrepancy between what was sold and what was genuine finds its way into federal court.
This is the background of the class action lawsuit Schwartz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., which was submitted to a federal court in New Mexico in February 2018. Eight years after the complaint was first filed, State Farm has agreed to pay $20.93 million to settle claims that it sold New Mexico drivers insurance coverage that was essentially “illusory”—that is, policies that collected premiums while offering protection that could be drastically reduced or eliminated by offset procedures the company allegedly neglected to adequately explain. Claims for the settlement are now being accepted, and the deadline is July 2, 2026.
U Coverage, the uninsured and unknown motorist portion of a typical auto policy, is the coverage at the heart of the case. This coverage is intended to protect drivers in New Mexico, as it is in the majority of states, in the event that they are struck by an uninsured person or someone who flees the scene. It appears to be simple. The offsets are where the complexity lies. According to New Mexico law, insurers may deduct amounts the policyholder receives from other sources, such as medical payments or liability coverage, from the amount they owe when determining an uninsured motorist payout. The lawsuit claimed that when State Farm sold U Coverage, it did not sufficiently explain how these offsets operated, giving policyholders what amounted to coverage that could be reduced to nothing under actual claim circumstances. Negligence, deception, violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act in New Mexico, violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and breach of good faith were among the allegations in the complaint.
Important Information: State Farm New Mexico U Coverage Settlement
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Schwartz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al. |
| Case Number | 18-CV-00328-KWR-SCY |
| Date Filed | February 2018 |
| Defendants | State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.; State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.; State Farm General Insurance Co. |
| Settlement Amount | $20,925,000 |
| Coverage Type at Issue | U Coverage (Uninsured and Unknown Motorist Coverage / UIM) |
| Eligible Policy Period | January 1, 2010 — December 31, 2021 |
| Jurisdiction | New Mexico |
| Core Allegation | Misleading / illusory insurance coverage; failure to explain offset procedures under New Mexico law; intentional misrepresentation |
| Laws Cited | New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act; New Mexico Unfair Insurance Practices Act; negligence; misrepresentation; breach of good faith |
| Payout — Minimum Limits Purchasers | Up to 21% of premiums paid (pro rata) |
| Payout — Non-Minimum Limits Purchasers | Up to 13% of premiums paid (pro rata) |
| Opt-Out Deadline | May 18, 2026 |
| Final Fairness Hearing | June 8, 2026 |
| Claim Deadline | July 2, 2026 |
| Settlement Administrator | Epiq Global |
| Mailing Address | P.O. Box 4359, Portland, OR 97208-4359 |
| Administrator Phone | 1-877-748-7791 |
| Settlement Website | schwartzuimclasssettlement.com |
| Attorneys’ Fees | Up to $4,250,000 |
| Named Plaintiff Award | $25,000 |
| Class Counsel | Pizzonia Law LLC; The Law Office of Ryan J. Villa; The Dominguez Law Firm LLC |
| State Farm’s Position | Denies all wrongdoing |
All of it is denied by State Farm. As is customary in these circumstances, the company consented to the settlement in order to avoid “the uncertainty and expense of ongoing litigation and a possible trial.” The underlying merits were not decided by a court. The settlement forecloses rather than resolves the question of whether the coverage was truly illusory or whether offset procedures are a common industry practice that was sufficiently disclosed. Even with a denial, $20.93 million is a sum that speaks for itself.
The settlement covers policyholders in New Mexico who had State Farm U Coverage between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021. This twelve-year period includes a huge number of regular drivers going about their daily lives, paying premiums, and believing that their protection was genuine. Pro rata reimbursement of up to 21% of premiums paid is available to those who purchased minimum limits coverage. Up to 13% may be awarded to those who purchased non-minimum limits coverage. The number of legitimate claims filed will determine the actual payout per person; fewer claimants will result in a larger individual share of the fund. A $25,000 service award is given to the named plaintiff, and attorneys’ fees are limited to $4.25 million.
A distinct ID and PIN from the settlement notice are needed to file a claim. Epiq Global, the settlement administrator, can be contacted by mail or phone at the Portland, Oregon address. The deadline for opting out is May 18, 2026. June 8 is the date of the final fairness hearing. Additionally, July 2, 2026 is the claim deadline, which is the last day to submit a claim and still be eligible for payment.
Reading the case’s specifics gives me the impression that it follows a pattern that insurance litigation has been following for years. Consumer protection lawyers have filed similar lawsuits against large carriers across the nation, claiming that the discrepancy between what is advertised and what is enforceable in complicated policy language amounts to systematic harm to consumers. Similar lawsuits have been filed against State Farm in other states. The underlying charge is straightforward: you paid for something you weren’t actually receiving. The specific legal hook here is offset procedures under New Mexico’s UIM framework.
The number of New Mexico policyholders who will submit claims is still unknown. The per-person payout, while significant, necessitates active participation from individuals who may have had State Farm coverage years or even ten years ago but have since moved on. Class action participation rates are infamously low. For drivers who have made consistent payments over a number of years, the 21% premium rebate for minimum limit holders may be a truly helpful amount. The difficulty that always accompanies these kinds of resolutions is getting those individuals to file before July 2 and to realize that the settlement is genuine and not a scam. The funds are accessible. Whether enough qualified policyholders learn about it in time to make a claim is the question.
