AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona (Farmers) and Xian Chen regarding the effectiveness of a rejection of underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The controversy centers on whether Farmers met the statutory and regulatory requirements for a valid rejection of UM/UIM coverage in policies issued to Chen. The policies in question were issued in 1998, and the dispute also relates to an accident involving Mrs. Chen that occurred in 2001.

Procedural History

• Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Chen, 2010-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 148 N.M. 151, 231 P.3d 607: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Chen.
• Order, Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Chen, S. Ct. No.32,243, dated Nov. 3, 2010: The New Mexico Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of Progressive Northwestern Insurance Co. v. Weed Warrior Services, 2010-NMSC-050, and Jordan v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2010-NMSC-051.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona): Argued that the rule requiring insurers to provide information concerning premium charges for each available UM/UIM coverage should not be applied retroactively to the Farmers I case and contended that the Chen policies met the rejection requirements of the UM statute and regulation as interpreted prior to Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-020.
• Appellee (Xian Chen): Urged the court to affirm the prior ruling, asserting it is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holdings in Weed Warrior and Jordan.

Legal Issues

• Whether the rule set forth in Jordan requiring insurers to provide information concerning premium charges for each available UM/UIM coverage should be applied retroactively to the facts of this case.
• Whether the Chen policies meet the rejection requirements of the UM statute and regulation as interpreted prior to Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-020.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that Weed Warrior and Jordan do not change the conclusion in the January 26, 2010, formal opinion that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Chen. The Court affirmed its ultimate disposition in the January 26, 2010, opinion affirming the district court.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The Court rejected Farmers' arguments for several reasons. Firstly, it concluded that the legal landscape established by Weed Warrior and Jordan, particularly regarding the "written rejection" and "attached notification" requirements for an effective rejection of UM/UIM coverage, left no room for Farmers' arguments. The Court found no meaningful distinction between this case and the policy circumstances described in Jordan, which determined there was not an effective rejection under similar conditions. Furthermore, the Court noted that Jordan clarified insurers must inform their insureds about premiums for different levels of UM/UIM coverage, which was not done in this case. Regarding the retroactivity of the Jordan decision, the Court referenced Jordan's assertion that its holding was based on settled principles articulated in two decades of UM/UIM jurisprudence, thus not favoring a prospective-only application. Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Mr. Chen, maintaining the stance from its prior ruling.