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

• In September 2009, the Plaintiffs were involved in a serious motor vehicle accident and filed an underinsured motorist claim with their insurer, Defendant, which was denied based on a written rejection of UM/UIM coverage the Plaintiffs had signed when purchasing their policy. The Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the UM/UIM coverage rejection form used by the Defendant was invalid under Jordan because it did not list premium charges for available UM/UIM coverage options (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Valencia County: Denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that an argument could be made that Jordan created a requirement for UM/UIM coverage options and corresponding premiums to be listed on the rejection form itself (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the UM/UIM coverage rejection form was invalid under Jordan for not containing a list of premium charges corresponding to available UM/UIM coverage options, and therefore, their policy should be reformed to provide UM/UIM coverage equal to their liability limits (para 4).
• Defendants: Contended that Plaintiffs misconstrued Jordan, asserting that while insurers must provide UM/UIM coverage options and corresponding premium information, this information does not need to appear directly on the written rejection of UM/UIM coverage (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether New Mexico law requires that an insurer provide available UM/UIM coverage options and corresponding premium information on the written rejection form delivered with the insurance policy to the insured (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision denying Defendants' motion to dismiss regarding the issue of whether UM/UIM coverage options and corresponding premium information must be provided on the written rejection form itself and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion (para 30).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge M. Monica Zamora with Judges James J. Wechsler concurring and Cynthia A. Fry dissenting, concluded that Jordan does not specifically require UM/UIM coverage options and corresponding premium information to be provided on the written rejection form itself. The decision was based on an interpretation of Jordan and related case law, which emphasizes the importance of informed decision-making by insureds regarding UM/UIM coverage but does not dictate the specific method of providing coverage and premium information. The Court found that providing this information prior to the purchase of the policy, in a manner that allows insureds to make an informed decision, satisfies the requirements set forth in Jordan, even if the information is not included on the rejection form delivered with the policy (paras 9-28).