2014 NMCA 031
N.M. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Lonnie and Mildred Curry) were in a serious 2009 car accident and sought UM/UIM benefits from Great Northwest Insurance; insurer denied the claim based on a written UM/UIM rejection the Currys had signed.
- Plaintiffs sued, alleging the rejection form was invalid under Jordan v. Allstate because it did not list available UM/UIM coverage options and corresponding premiums on the rejection form itself, and 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 those details be on the rejection form itself.
- The district court denied the motion and certified the narrow question for interlocutory appeal: whether Jordan requires UM/UIM options and premiums to appear on the written rejection form included with the delivered policy.
- On appeal, the court accepted the complaint’s allegations as true for the motion-to-dismiss standard and limited review to the certified question.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding Jordan requires insurers to provide coverage options and premium information in a meaningful way when purchasing/renewing a policy but does not require that information to be printed on the written rejection form itself; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jordan requires available UM/UIM coverage options and corresponding premiums to be listed on the written UM/UIM rejection form included with the delivered policy | Jordan’s requirements (offer coverage, inform of premiums, obtain written rejection, incorporate rejection into policy) mean the coverage options and premium charges must appear on the rejection form itself | Jordan requires insurers to offer options and disclose premiums, but does not mandate that those disclosures appear on the rejection form; they need only be provided in a meaningful way when purchasing/renewing the policy | Reversed district court: Jordan requires disclosure of options/premiums in a meaningful way but does not require those details to be printed on the written rejection form itself; claim dismissed for failure to state a claim on that theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 149 N.M. 162, 245 P.3d 1214 (N.M. 2010) (establishes four prerequisites for valid UM/UIM rejection: offer policy-limit coverage, inform insured of premiums for available levels, obtain written rejection of policy-limit coverage, and incorporate rejection into delivered policy so insured can reconsider)
- Marckstadt v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 147 N.M. 678, 228 P.3d 462 (N.M. 2010) (insurer must obtain written rejection before excluding UM/UIM coverage from a policy)
- Romero v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 111 N.M. 154, 803 P.2d 243 (N.M. 1990) (UM/UIM rejection must be in writing and included in delivered policy to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver)
- Montano v. Allstate Indem. Co., 135 N.M. 681, 92 P.3d 1255 (N.M. 2004) (insurer must provide premium costs for each level of available stacked coverage and obtain written rejection to limit insured’s stacking rights)
- Progressive Nw. Ins. Co. v. Weed Warrior Servs., 149 N.M. 157, 245 P.3d 1209 (N.M. 2010) (election to purchase UM/UIM below liability limits constitutes rejection of maximum UM/UIM coverage)