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 Plaintiff, after being involved in a vehicle accident and settling with the tortfeasor's insurance for policy limits, sought to claim uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits under her own insurance policy with the Defendant. This policy, which covered two vehicles, initially did not include UM/UIM coverage due to the Plaintiff's rejection of such coverage at the time of purchase. However, this rejection was later deemed legally invalid, entitling the Plaintiff to UM/UIM coverage by law (para 2).

Procedural History

• Arias v. Phoenix Indem. Ins. Co., 2009-NMCA-100, 147 N.M. 14, 216 P.3d 264: The court held that the Plaintiff's rejection of UM/UIM coverage was legally deficient, requiring judicial intervention to include the coverage in the policy. The issue of whether the coverage should be stacked was remanded for consideration (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued for the intra-policy stacking of UM/UIM coverage, asserting entitlement based on the policy covering more than one vehicle and the previous court decision that her rejection of UM/UIM coverage was legally invalid (para 2).
• Defendant: Contended against the stacking of UM/UIM coverage, presumably arguing that the policy, as originally agreed upon, did not include stacked UM/UIM coverage due to the Plaintiff's initial rejection of such coverage.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to stack uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage for two vehicles under a single policy, given that the initial rejection of UM/UIM coverage was found to be legally invalid (paras 1, 8-15).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's decision, granting summary judgment to the Plaintiff, thereby allowing the stacking of UM/UIM coverage for the two vehicles covered under the policy (para 16).

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, concurring):
  The court reasoned that the Plaintiff is entitled to stack UM/UIM coverage due to the policy covering multiple vehicles and the invalid rejection of UM/UIM coverage. It referenced New Mexico's legislative intent to provide broad protection against uninsured and underinsured motorists, stating that coverage should be liberally interpreted to fulfill this remedial purpose. The court further held that, in the absence of a valid rejection of UM/UIM coverage, such coverage must be read into the policy to the full extent of its liability limits for each vehicle insured under the policy. This interpretation aligns with the state's public policy favoring insurance coverage to protect against losses caused by uninsured and underinsured motorists. The court concluded that failing to adequately reject stacking results in the imposition of stacking, thereby extending UM/UIM coverage to each of the insured vehicles under the policy (paras 3-15).