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

• Donald Romero was seriously injured in an accident with an uninsured motorist and is permanently disabled. He had insurance coverage from Allstate (primary insurer) and Progressive (secondary insurer). After litigation, both insurers paid the undisputed underinsured motorist (UM) coverage amounts. Romero then filed a declaratory judgment action against Progressive regarding the UM coverage amount, leading to additional payments from Progressive after court decisions in Romero's favor.

Procedural History

• Romero v. Progressive Nw. Ins. Co., 2010-NMCA-024, 148 N.M. 97, 230 P.3d 844, aff’d sub nom. Jordan, 2010-NMSC-051: The court ordered Progressive to pay additional UM coverage, affirming that UM coverage should equal liability limits unless properly rejected in writing.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Romero): Argued that Progressive owed additional UM coverage equal to liability limits due to failure to obtain a valid rejection of such coverage in writing.
• Defendant-Appellant (Progressive): Contended that its denial of coverage was reasonable based on pre-Jordan case law and that the amount due was not ascertainable on the date of the accident.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in awarding pre-judgment interest and attorney fees to Romero.
• Whether Progressive's denial of equalized UM coverage was a breach of contract.
• Whether the amount due under the contract was ascertainable from the day of the accident.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the decision to award pre-judgment interest and attorney fees to Romero but vacated the amounts awarded and remanded for recalculation.

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The court found Progressive's denial of coverage unreasonable based on well-settled law regarding UM coverage requirements (paras 8-10, 18).
  It was determined that the amount due under the contract was ascertainable from the day of the accident, but pre-judgment interest should begin from the date Progressive denied the claim, not the accident date (paras 13-14).
  The court disagreed with Progressive's argument that its position was reasonable based on pre-Jordan case law, highlighting that the legal requirements for UM coverage rejection were clear and established before the accident (paras 7-10).
  The court remanded for recalculation of pre-judgment interest starting from the date Progressive denied equalized UM coverage and for reconsideration of attorney fees, emphasizing the need for a reasonable fee determination in line with New Mexico statutes and judicial rules (paras 19-20).