Why the first number is rarely the real number
Insurance adjusters routinely open negotiations with a conservative figure, expecting a counteroffer. Accepting that first offer typically closes the claim permanently — there's generally no going back to ask for more later, even if additional injuries or costs surface afterward.
Several liability: each defendant pays their own share
New Mexico courts have specifically held that traditional joint and several liability — where any one defendant could be forced to cover the entire judgment — is inconsistent with pure comparative fault's core principle of apportioning responsibility by percentage. In Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, the Court of Appeals confirmed that a concurrent tortfeasor is generally liable only for their own percentage of fault, not the full damages caused by all tortfeasors combined.
Why this matters at the negotiating table
In a claim with more than one at-fault party, this structure means collecting the full value of the claim may require pursuing recovery from each defendant separately, rather than relying on a single well-insured defendant to cover the whole amount. A settlement offer from just one defendant's insurer should be weighed with that in mind — it may represent only that defendant's proportional share, not the full value of the claim.
Fault still reduces, never eliminates
Separately, it's worth remembering that New Mexico's pure comparative fault rule means an adjuster's fault argument can only reduce your own recovery proportionally — it can never zero it out entirely, however high your assigned fault percentage climbs.
The baseline still applies
None of this changes the ordinary approach to a first offer: compare it against a complete, well-documented account of your actual damages before deciding whether to accept or counter, since the decision is generally final once made.