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 was involved in an accident after purchasing an automotive liability insurance policy from the Defendant, Progressive Direct Insurance Company, which covered three vehicles. The Plaintiff had rejected uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage when purchasing the policy. Following the accident, the Plaintiff sought UIM coverage from Progressive, which was denied based on the prior rejection of UM/UIM coverage (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court: Granted summary judgment in favor of Progressive, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice (para 4).
- Kileen v. Didio, A-1-CA-39384: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, relying on precedent that did not require UM/UIM coverage to be offered on a per-vehicle basis (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that New Mexico's UM/UIM statute and public policy require insurers to offer UM/UIM coverage on a per-vehicle basis to encourage the purchase of such coverage (para 8).
- Defendant (Progressive): Contended that offering UM/UIM coverage on a per-policy basis was sufficient and that a per-vehicle requirement would be burdensome and confusing for consumers (paras 20-22).
Legal Issues
- Whether insurers are required to provide UM/UIM coverage for each motor vehicle insured unless the insured makes a valid written rejection of such coverage on a per-vehicle basis (para 7).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that insurers must offer UM/UIM coverage on a per-vehicle basis and disclose premiums accordingly (para 1).
- The Court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive (para 31).
Reasons
Per Vargas J. (Thomson CJ., Vigil, Bacon, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The Court determined that the statutory text of New Mexico's UM/UIM statute does not explicitly resolve whether coverage must be offered on a per-vehicle basis. However, the Court emphasized the remedial purpose of the statute, which is to encourage the purchase of UM/UIM insurance. The Court concluded that offering coverage on a per-vehicle basis aligns with this purpose and public policy, as it allows consumers to purchase coverage they can afford and make informed decisions (paras 10-17). The Court also clarified that this requirement does not alter the rule that UM/UIM coverage follows the insured, not the vehicle (paras 23-24). The decision applies with selective prospectivity, meaning it applies to the parties in this case and future cases, but not retroactively to past cases (paras 26-30).