limits of one hundred thousand per person and three hundred thousand cracks didn't for six vehicles on the policy i'm january th of two thousand and thirteen mr hawley signs the uninsured under insured motorists coverage selection fifteen suffering personal injury now with approval of foreign hero the tortfeasor paid her coverage limits of twenty five thousand dollars and subsequently farm bureau of the non stacked limits of one hundred thousand minus the mr holley chose the nd option now the stacking rejection and section is void of any further information this separate us you i am coverage selection the liability limits of one hundred and three and is that that variation of options on you are you ham and you i am coverage required by statute by law you i am coverage section was rejected it was all accepted mr hawley selected the highest limits he could consistent with his liability policy limits and so much and my question is when you get on the form to the section with the stacked part of the form is there anything statutorily that would have required the insurer to offer a stacked option vehicle by vehicle as opposed to by policy so where the this court had a yes or no question sure is it is it written into the statute the coverage and the only way for an insurer to get around that is to provide a separate comprehensive rejection of such coverage but what my title said was they weren't  that they refused to declare all anti stacking clauses void as against public policy right and as chair yes so you could an insurer in new mexico could say we're offering any stacking coverage says is that we and insurers were doing that before montana and the court appreciated him and tanya look keeping it in the policy language is not working it's not effective for the insurer or  to effectively avoid stacked coverage and the insurer to effectively avoid stack coverage if that was their wishes and the much time your court gave direction that said the only way to do this is to have a separate comprehensible and written display or stacking weld so it starts going to do with what they say is that you have to reject in writing all or some of the offered coverages isn't that an important distinction here i mean in montana the saying you know if you can't is if the anti stacking is void and you have in your offering coverage then this is how if you're offering coverage you would you would make sure that the insured understands what they're rejecting but that your your argument here presupposes that any insure a rejection of every possible permutation of stacked coverage whether or not the insurer chooses to offer that it and i understand your position rac specifically addresses the issue of rejection of stacking coverage is under a un you have a policy and so the court didn't say in one tiny paragraph eighteen the solution is to treat stacked coverage as extra coverage for which the parties have contracted so the court is saying there yes when someone purchases an insurance policy with multiple vehicles it is now part of new mexico law that we're going to read into that policy includes stacked copper and then the insurer would have to obtain a written rejection to limit liability but if they don't offer stack coverage in the st place  where does that leave us well mom tanya takes that option away from the insurance company the solution that they said was to treat stock coverage and the extra coverage for with which policy has stacked coverage and how did how would you reject something that wasn't there in the st place well it's always there if you have a policy coverage with multiple vehicles on it stock policy and the only way to avoid that stacked policy is for a specific is if the insurance company undertakes the burden of obtaining that separate rejection of the stacking well how does it follow that that the insurer needs to are for stack coverage on a per vehicle basis and offer all the permutations and combinations as judgment you was referring to where  no if you look at the stacking rejection section of the form the only options that mr hall he was given on the stacking rejection portion is to staff or not staff there's nothing else in that form there's no premiums there's no other vehicles listed if you go to section two which is the staffing rejections action it's stat or don't stack so so you're saying that if even if they could have limited his choice to stack our don't stack they would have had to spell out how that affected the  reject some option it's all or some of the offered coverage so if the insurer doesn't offer vehicle by the call then they don't have to spell it out as in this illustration do they well cerner and leaving it up to the insurance companies what options they choose to offer to the insured would be against new mexico public policy new mexico public you i am coverage rejection all together mr hawley did not reject any coverage under section one and then he signed section one completed it and moved on to section was he but let me put it this way how many choices with their pay if all possible permutations for a six vehicle policy were presented it to mr hall how many options what there under that circumstance i haven't even been able to do the math concern but no that's not what you would have so in the rejection i'm stacking form itself there's no options other than staff or don't staff so wh i like to say is that if you're looking at all the cases that are currently pending before the new mexico supreme court allman lauriston van apps and they're not necessary because all of those cases focus on rejection offered you in coverage provided premiums corresponding to the various levels of coverage and up to a valid rejection when the at pella and rejected stacked coverage that set forth in page one of two in the selection coverage in contravention of the new mexico public policy the answer is no there is nothing in the record other than argument of counsel that the appellant was discouraged from purchasing any coverages from twenty intra policy stacked coverage then he would have paid seven hundred and twenty six dollars fifty six cents which is the stacked us comparable policy but he picked the non stacked and paid two hundred and seventy four dollars sixteen cents that's how he would have known that that's what it would have cost him to purchase tacked coverage and did he have an option to stack the nickel by vehicle no you're on a that's because in this case  a multi basically policy so the option as miss hold correctly argued before the court was the plane could have rejected stacking he could have purchased stacked coverage if he had purchased stacked coverage than he would have had to stack all that he calls on the policy and paid seven hundred and twenty six dollars and zero dollars fifty six cents in this case he purchased uninsured underaged motorist coverage he just chose not to stack it stacking in between the two layers something non stock versus stacked that's the reason why you don't have two hundred and one time you pay for r r sorry the insurance company has to offer the various levels of intermediate coverage it doesn't stand for that proposition and just because the insured paid for liability coverage per vehicle then that's a completely different analysis because in four u n purposes the way i think of  example and he gets struck he gets uninsured motorist uninsured motorists in new mexico it's not tied to be cold it's just uninsured motorist coverage whereas liability coverage is tied to it he will if this insured was driving somebody else's vehicle down the the fundamental difference between charging premiums per vehicle for liability coverage versus charging a single premium for either stacked or nonstop coverage under uninsured motorist coverage in new mexico new mexico state law and we have these cases pending before the new mexico supreme court should this court hold off and get the benefit of those decisions before we decide your   this very issue is not a stranger before this very court this very court has ruled on this issue in a case called how to me of course is geico this court shows not to stay the  applies only when there are fundamental and important questions of state law and policies where the state courts are required to answer those in the st instance the state of course is already answered this month tanya is the law and courts interpret law we don't have any uncertain issue of state law this case does not involve a federal constitution claim the state issues are amenable to interpretation and such an interpretation obviates the need for or substantially narrows the scope of a constitutional came we don't have that here an incorrect decision of the state law by the district court would hinder important state law policies that's not at issue here either and furthermore your honor there is no guarantee that the state supreme court while the state court has granted a writ of certiorari can't question tomorrow so why wait for the state supreme court to issue it ruling when the case is decided and the state supreme court at any time can wash it therefore i think this issue is right before this court and that this court has before it not only the heart of meal decision which interpreted nothing basis farm bureau offers a multi behavioral policy providing choices the choices are you either reject the six stacked coverage or you buy stock coverage if opulent had chosen to he could have purchased a lower limit not the same equal one hundred thousand that he bought in liability coverage that he part in un coverage he could have chose so he could have bought lower limits and bought stock coverage if you wanted more coverage he had the options he chose to buy the coverage that he did the form itself is not ambiguous the form complies with the munteanu the form provides various premium levels for the various options so the four complies with matanya we don't believe that the jordan or the weed where your analysis applies here because jordan and weed were your services was decided under the umbrella even insured by you in coverage lower than the liability limits however if the court were to disagree with me and find that it does apply and that we do need to satisfy we do more in jordan then if you look at the form it goes to show that from there did actually in fact an insurance company to provide information regarding corresponding premium charges for each of the little liberal coverage from here or did that jordan biquad is a written rejection of human coverage equal to the liability limits biting short in this case it doesn't apply because he thought the same level of coverage is but if you transfer that to a stacking issue we did up pain and written rejection of stacking even though it doesn't have to be inviting it just has to be a i'm sorry even though it doesn't have to be signed it just has to be a written incorporating that the insured had rejected stacked coverage on the declaration pages itself therefore even if we did order services in jordan were to apply complied with all four provinces off the test  council also argued in the briefing that farmer selection rejection form is not informative it discourages policy holders from purchasing coverage that they want and it explains the various coverage as it was incorporated into the policy that was delivered to the insured and therefore the argument that farmer selection farm is our discourages insurance from buying coverage is without merit i see that my time is running close to being done your honor for all the reasons that we've argued in our briefing for all the reasons that we've argued here today we believe that