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 involves a dispute over whether uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance must be offered on a per-vehicle basis. The Plaintiff's father purchased an automotive liability insurance policy from Progressive Direct Insurance Company for three vehicles, rejecting UM/UIM coverage. After an 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 public policy and the UM/UIM statute support requiring insurers to offer UM/UIM coverage on a per-vehicle basis (para 8).
- Defendant (Progressive): Contended that offering UM/UIM coverage on a per-vehicle basis would be burdensome and that their per-policy offer was sufficient (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).
Reasons
Per Vargas J. (Thomson CJ., Vigil, Bacon, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The Court determined that the legislative purpose of the UM/UIM statute is to encourage the purchase of such coverage, which is best achieved by requiring insurers to offer UM/UIM coverage on a per-vehicle basis. This approach aligns with public policy and ensures consumers can make informed decisions about their coverage options. The Court emphasized that this requirement enhances freedom of contract by allowing consumers to select coverage they can afford. The decision applies with selective prospectivity, meaning it affects the parties in this case and future cases but not past cases (paras 12-30).