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.
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 Comp., § 59-10-33.4, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 241, § 4; 1989, ch. 263, § 42.
ANNOTATIONSBracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.
Enforcement of agreement on choice of law. — Subsection B allows an explicit agreement concerning choice of law and such agreement may be enforceable without an explicit agreement about where employment is "principally localized." Cawyer v. Continental Express Trucking, 1997-NMCA-008, 122 N.M. 819, 932 P.2d 509.
Subsection B requires that the state of choice in an agreement must be one in which the worker travels regularly, and the totality of the circumstances of employment in the context of the business involved must be considered in deciding whether a worker was required to travel regularly in a particular state. Cawyer v. Continental Express Trucking, 1997-NMCA-008, 122 N.M. 819, 932 P.2d 509.
Substantial working time in New Mexico. — New Mexico resident injured at an Arizona construction site while working for a Colorado contractor was entitled to recovery by virtue of the fact that he was spending a substantial part of his working time for the contractor in New Mexico, since he had been working for the contractor in Arizona barely a month before the accident, and before starting work on the two Arizona jobs the claimant had worked for the contractor in New Mexico for more than a year with minimal interruption. Todacheene v. G & S Masonry, 1993-NMCA-126, 116 N.M. 478, 863 P.2d 1099, cert. denied sub nom. Todacheene v. Travelers Indem., 116 N.M. 364, 862 P.2d 1223.
Employment not permanent transfer where for particular job. — Employment of decedent to work in Nevada did not constitute a permanent assignment or transfer although decedent left New Mexico for several months at a time, since his employment was for a particular job which could not be classed as permanent employment. Roan v. D.W. Falls, Inc., 1963-NMSC-154, 72 N.M. 464, 384 P.2d 896 (decided under former law).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 24.