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 arose from an automobile accident involving multiple parties. The Plaintiff settled claims against all defendants except for Progressive Direct Insurance Company. The remaining claim against Progressive centered on the Plaintiff's entitlement to uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage despite having rejected this coverage. The Plaintiff contested Progressive's "all or nothing" coverage option, arguing it was contrary to New Mexico law (para 3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Summary judgment in favor of Defendant Progressive Direct Insurance Company, dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued entitlement to UM/UIM coverage despite rejection, challenging Progressive's "all or nothing" coverage option as contrary to New Mexico law (para 3).
• Defendant (Progressive Direct Insurance Company): Contended that their "all or nothing" offer of coverage did not violate New Mexico law, supporting the dismissal of the complaint (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the "all or nothing" coverage option employed by Progressive Direct Insurance Company violates New Mexico law (para 3).
• Whether the policy should be reformed to provide UM/UIM coverage (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Progressive Direct Insurance Company and dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Zachary A. Ives, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Jane B. Yohalem, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The Court referenced the precedent set in Lueras v. GEICO General Insurance Co., which held that the "all or nothing" offer of coverage does not violate New Mexico law. Despite the Plaintiff's challenge to the Lueras decision and request for its overruling, the Court declined to revisit the precedent. Consequently, the Court did not address the Plaintiff's argument for policy reformation to include UM/UIM coverage, as the foundational legal challenge was deemed unfounded (paras 4-5).