320 P.3d 482
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Lonnie and Mildred Curry were in a 2009 automobile accident and sought underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits from Great Northwest Insurance, which denied the claim based on a written UM/UIM rejection form signed when the policy was purchased.
- Plaintiffs sued, alleging the rejection form was invalid under Jordan v. Allstate because it did not list available UM/UIM coverage options and corresponding premium charges on the rejection form itself, and they sought reformation to policy-limit UM/UIM coverage.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(6), arguing Jordan requires insurers to provide coverage options and premium information but does not mandate that such information appear on the written rejection form included with the delivered policy.
- The district court denied dismissal, certified the narrow question for interlocutory appeal, and this Court accepted review limited to whether the coverage/options and corresponding premiums must appear on the written rejection form delivered with the insured’s policy.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Jordan requires insurers to provide meaningful information (menu of coverage options and premiums) and obtain written rejections incorporated into the policy, but does not require that the coverage options and premiums be printed on the rejection form itself; dismissal was therefore appropriate as to that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jordan requires UM/UIM coverage options and corresponding premium charges to appear on the written rejection form included with the delivered policy | Curry: Jordan’s requirements (offer options, inform of premiums, obtain written rejection, incorporate rejection into policy) implicitly require the coverage options and premiums to be listed on the rejection form itself | Great Northwest: Jordan requires insurers to offer options and premiums and get a written rejection incorporated into the policy, but does not require the options/premiums to be printed on the rejection form itself | The court held Jordan requires providing options/premiums and a written rejection incorporated into the policy, but does not mandate that the options/premiums appear on the rejection form itself; plaintiffs’ theory failed to state a claim on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 245 P.3d 1214 (Supreme Court of N.M.) (established four prerequisites for valid UM/UIM rejection: offer equal to liability limits, inform about premiums, obtain written rejection, incorporate rejection into policy)
- Marckstadt v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 228 P.3d 462 (Supreme Court of N.M.) (insurer must obtain written UM/UIM rejection before excluding coverage)
- Romero v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., 803 P.2d 243 (Supreme Court of N.M.) (rejection must be knowing and informed; rejection should be part of delivered policy)
- Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 92 P.3d 1255 (Supreme Court of N.M.) (insurer must provide premium costs for stacking options and obtain written rejection to limit stacking)
- Progressive Nw. Ins. Co. v. Weed Warrior Servs., 245 P.3d 1209 (Supreme Court of N.M.) (election by insured of less than liability limits constitutes rejection of maximum UM/UIM coverage)
- Kaiser v. DeCarrera, 923 P.2d 588 (Supreme Court of N.M.) (form and manner of rejection governed by insurance regulations rather than statute)