IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

KATELIN NEWMAN,

Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

CORNERSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY DBA FREEDOM NATIONAL 

INSURANCE SERVICES,

Defendant/Appellee.

No. CV-14-0121-PR

Filed March 18, 2015

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge

No. CV2011-099023

AFFIRMED

Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One

234 Ariz. 377, 322 P.3d 194 (App. 2014)

VACATED

COUNSEL:

Krista M. Carman (argued), Brian R. Warnock, Warnock, MacKinlay & 

Carman, PLLC, Prescott, Attorneys for Katelin Newman

John A. Elardo, Venessa J. Bragg, Amanda Nelson, Elardo, Bragg, Appel & 

Rossi, P.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Cornerstone National Insurance 

Company dba Freedom National Insurance Services

Stanley G. Feldman, Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, P.L.C., 

Tucson; and David L. Abney, Knapp & Roberts, P.C., Scottsdale, Attorneys 

for Amicus Curiae Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers 

Association

Myles P. Hassett, Julie K. Moen, Jamie A. Glasser, The Hassett Law Firm, 

P.L.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Independent Insurance 

Agents and Brokers of Arizona
NEWMAN V CORNERSTONE

Opinion of the Court

Joel DeCiancio, Christopher Robbins (argued), DeCiancio Robbins, PLC, 

Tempe, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance Company

Barry M. Corey, DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, P.C., Tucson, 

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Nicolette Davis

JUSTICE BRUTINEL authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF

JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, and JUSTICES 

BERCH and TIMMER joined.

JUSTICE BRUTINEL, opinion of the Court:

¶1 Arizona Revised Statutes § 20-259.01(B) requires motor 

vehicle insurers writing liability policies to “make available” and “by 

written notice offer” underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage to their

insureds. We hold that § 20-259.01(B) does not require the notice to specify 

the cost of the UIM coverage.

I.

¶2 Katelin Newman was injured in a motor vehicle accident 

caused by another driver’s negligence. The at-fault driver’s insurance was 

insufficient to cover Newman’s damages. She sought UIM coverage from 

her insurer, Cornerstone National Insurance Company (“Cornerstone”), 

but Cornerstone denied her claim because Newman had waived UIM 

coverage. Cornerstone had previously offered Newman UIM coverage on 

a form approved by the Arizona Department of Insurance (“ADOI”) when 

she purchased her car insurance, but Newman declined the coverage.

¶3 Newman sued, seeking a declaration that the UIM waiver 

form was void and that she was entitled to coverage. She sought partial 

summary judgment on the ground that Cornerstone’s offer was deficient 

under A.R.S. § 20-259.01(B) because the written notice offering the UIM 

coverage did not include a premium quote, which a proper offer requires. 

Cornerstone cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that: (1) the 

ADOI had approved the form on which Newman declined 

uninsured/underinsured (“UM/UIM”) coverage, and ADOI-approved 

forms satisfy § 20-259.01’s requirements; and (2) even if the ADOI had not 

approved the form, Arizona law does not require an offer of UM/UIM 

2
NEWMAN V CORNERSTONE

Opinion of the Court

coverage to include a premium quote. The trial court denied Newman’s 

motion for summary judgment and granted Cornerstone’s cross-motion.

¶4 The court of appeals affirmed, holding that “no premium 

price is required for a written offer of UIM coverage to be valid,” and 

therefore “Cornerstone’s offer of UIM coverage to Newman satisfied the 

requirements of A.R.S. § 20-259.01.” Newman v. Cornerstone Nat’l Ins. Co., 

234 Ariz. 377, 378 ¶ 1, 380 ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 194, 195, 197 (App. 2014). The court 

reasoned that the statute is “very specific regarding what the offer must 

contain” and declined to impose additional requirements. Id. at 379 ¶ 7, 322 

P.3d at 196. 

¶5 We granted review to resolve whether the statutorily required 

written offer must include a premium quote, a recurrent legal question of 

statewide importance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section

5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24.

II.

¶6 We review the interpretation of statutes de novo. State v. 

Hansen, 215 Ariz. 287, 289 ¶ 6, 160 P.3d 166, 168 (2007). Section 20-259.01(B) 

provides:

Every insurer writing automobile liability or motor vehicle 

liability policies shall also make available to the named insured 

thereunder and shall by written notice offer the insured and at 

the request of the insured shall include within the policy 

underinsured motorist coverage which extends to and covers 

all persons insured under the policy, in limits not less than the 

liability limits for bodily injury or death contained within the 

policy. The selection of limits or rejection of coverage by a 

named insured or applicant on a form approved by the 

director shall be valid for all insureds under the policy.

(Emphasis added.)

¶7 Newman argues that an “offer,” as understood under the 

common law, must include the price. But this interpretation conflicts with 

our prior interpretation of the statute. 

3
NEWMAN V CORNERSTONE

Opinion of the Court

¶8 We have held that § 20-259.01’s requirement that an insurer 

“make available” UM/UIM coverage means “that insurers be willing to 

provide such coverage.” Ballesteros v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wis., 226 Ariz. 

345, 348 ¶ 11, 248 P.3d 193, 196 (2011). In Ballesteros we also held that the 

provision “by written notice offer” requires only “that insurers bring the 

availability of such coverage to the insured’s attention.” Id. (citing 1981 

Ariz. Sess. Laws, Ch. 224, § 1 (1st Reg. Sess.)). As used in § 20-259.01, the 

word “offer” is a verb and means “[t]o bring to or before; to present for 

acceptance or rejection; to hold out or proffer; to make a proposal to; to 

exhibit something that may be taken or received or not.” Tallent v. Nat’l 

Gen. Ins. Co., 185 Ariz. 266, 267–68, 915 P.2d 665, 666–67 (1996) (quoting 

Black’s Law Dictionary 1081 (6th ed. 1990)). Thus, § 20-259.01(B) requires 

an insurer to “make available” UIM insurance and to communicate that 

availability in a written notice. The statute does not require the insurer to 

convey all material terms of the proposed insurance contract. Although we 

applied general contract principles in both Tallent and Ballesteros, we 

declined to add requirements not specifically included in the statute. Id.; 

Ballesteros, 226 Ariz. at 348–49 ¶¶ 13–14, 248 P.3d at 196–97. 

¶9 Whether an offer of UM/UIM coverage has been made does 

not depend on the insured’s understanding of the terms being offered, but 

instead on whether a reasonable person would understand that his or her 

acceptance would bind the insurer to provide the offered coverage. 

Ballesteros, 226 Ariz. at 348–49 ¶¶ 13–14, 248 P.3d at 196–97. Based on that 

reasoning, we held that § 20–259.01 does not require an explanation of UIM 

coverage. Tallent, 185 Ariz. at 267, 915 P.2d at 666. Similarly, the offer need 

not be translated into Spanish; the statute requires only that the insurer 

provide written notice offering coverage that, if accepted, binds the insurer. 

Ballesteros, 226 Ariz. at 349 ¶ 14, 248 P.3d at 197.

¶10 Here, Cornerstone’s UM/UIM selection form brought the 

availability of coverage to Newman’s attention. It informed her that she 

had “a right to purchase both Uninsured Motorist coverage and 

Underinsured Motorist coverage” in an amount up to her policy’s liability 

limit. If Newman had elected to receive UM/UIM coverage on 

Cornerstone’s form and initialed the box captioned “Accept,” a reasonable 

person in her position would understand that Cornerstone was bound to 

provide the coverage regardless of whether a premium price was included. 

Cornerstone’s offer of UIM coverage satisfied A.R.S. § 20-259.01’s 

requirements.

4
NEWMAN V CORNERSTONE

Opinion of the Court

¶11 Although the cost might be useful information in encouraging 

insureds to purchase coverage and helping them to decide whether to buy,

§ 20-259.01 does not require this information. We have previously refused 

to add requirements to this statute and again decline to do so. Ballesteros, 

226 Ariz. at 349 ¶ 17, 248 P.3d at 197; Tallent, 185 Ariz. at 268, 915 P.2d at 

667. Nothing precluded Newman from asking how much UIM coverage 

would cost before she chose to forego it, and nothing suggests that insurers 

would refuse to provide the price information if requested. 

III.

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment 

and vacate the court of appeals’ opinion. Cornerstone also requests an 

award of its attorney fees on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01. In the 

exercise of our discretion, we deny its request.

5