1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: June 14, 201 8 4 NOS . A -1-C A- 3496 1 & A -1-C A- 3566 1 (Consolidated ) 5 ANGELA LUE RAS an d J OE LUE RAS, indi vi dua ll y, 6 Pl ai nti ff

s- Appe llants , 7 an d 8 AN GELALU ERA S and JOE LU ERA S, 9 as parents and guardians of A . L UER AS , a m inor, 10 Pl ai nti ff

s, 11 v. 12 GEI CO GENE RAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 De fendant-Appellee, 14 an d 15 MARIA RODRI GUEZ , FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY 16 OF A R IZ ON A a/k

/a F A R M ER S IN SU R

A N C E G R OU P a/k

/a 17 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANG E, 18 D ef

en dants , 19 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 20 A lan M . M alo tt , D ist ri ctJu dg e1 A nd

2 DA VID VA N E PP S, 3 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 4 v

. 5 GEI CO INDE MNIT Y COMPANY 6 De fendant-Appellee, 7 an d 8 CES AR

MON TAÑ O, 9 10 D ef

en dants . 11 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF TA OS C OUN TY 12 Sa ra h C . Ba ck

us , D ist ri ctJu dg e 13 Law O ffice s of Ge offre y R. Rom ero 14 Ge offre y

R. Rom ero 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 O’ Co nn el l Law LLC 17 E ri n B

. O ’ Co nne ll 18 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 19 W id ne r Law Fir m

LLC 20 Susan H. W idner 21 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 22 fo r L ue ra s Appe llants 23 Anthony

G. Lopez, Attorney

at L aw 24 Anthony

G. Lopez 25 Tao s, NM 26 fo r V anE pps Appe llant1 Chapm an and Priest, PC

2 Stephen M. S im one 3 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 4 Perr y Law, P. C. 5 Meloney

Per ry 6 St ac y T hom pson 7 Dall as , TX 8 for G EI CO Appellees22 GE ICO Ge neral Insurance Com pany and GE IC O In dem

nity Com pany are 1 23 refe rred to th ro ug ho ut th is op in io n c ol le ct iv el y as GEIC O. 1 OPIN ION 2 KIEHN E, Judge. 3 { 1} Pl ai nti ff

s, A nge laa nd J oe L ue ra s, a nd D av id V anE pps, f ile d tw o se parate 4 law sui ts a ga ins t G E IC O G en er al I nsur an ce Co m pany a nd G E IC O I nde m

nity 5 Com pany , r espectively , in resp onse to GEI CO’ s refusal to pay

1 6 uni nsur ed

/un de ri ns ur e d

( U M/U IM ) be ne fi ts t o th em . G E IC O de cl ine d to pay be ca use 7 Plaintiffs had rej ect ed UM/U IM covera ge. T he district courts granted summ ary 8 j udgm en t t o G E IC O in both c as es . T he se appe al s rais e subs tanti al ly sim ilar iss ue s, 9 an d fo r th atreas on we ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n to co ns ol id at e th em forde ci si on . See 10 Ru le 12 -3 17 (B) NM RA. 11 { 2} O n a

ppe al , P la int if

fs m ak e the f

oll ow ing c la im s: 12 1. T he U M/U IM r ej ec tio n form s violate d Ne wMe xic o lawbe ca use 13 the y

did not e xpl ai n th at

the U M/U IM be ne fi ts w oul d be sta ck ed

. 14 2. T he ins ur an ce pol ic ie s w er e m isl ea din g and am big uous be ca

use 15 the y

inc or rect ly s ta te d th at

U M/U IM be ne fi ts w oul d no t be 16 sta ck ed

. 17 3. The L uerases separately claim that GE ICO violated NewMexico 18 lawbe ca use the de cl arati on p ag e m isr ep re se nts the a m ount of 19 UM/U IM covera ge. 2 0 4

. G E I C O ’s r e qu i r e me n tt h a tP l a i n t i f f s e i t h e r p u r c h a s e t h e s a me 21 le ve l of UM /U IM ins ur an ce on ea ch ve hic le co ve re d by a sin gle2

1 policy , or rej ect U M/UI M insurance entirely , violated N ew 2 Mex ic o l aw. 3 5. T he L ue ra se s se parate ly c la im that G E IC O’ s fa ilure to obt ai n 4 an oth er

r ej ec tio n of

U M/U IM c ove ra ge w he n th ey ad ded a 5 vehicle to their policy entitles them

to UM/U IM covera ge. 6 6. Mr

. V anE pps se parate ly c ont en ds tha t a ft er his w if e ini tia lly 7 se le ct ed U M/U IM co ve ra ge be low the lia bil ity lim its of

the 8 policy , G EI CO sent her a f or m that im properly discouraged her 9 fr om

pur ch as ing U M/U IM c ove ra ge , a nd t ha t he r re j ec tio n of 10 UM/ UIM co ve rag e o n t ha t fo rm is th eref or e in va li d. 11 { 3} W e af

firm . C laim s 1 and 2 are identical to claim s that we r ecently considered 12 an d re j ec te d in U

llm an v . Saf

ew ayI nsuranc e Co

. , 2017 -N MC A -0 71, 404 P. 3d 4 34, 13 cert. gran ted , 201 7- N MC E RT -_ __ ( A -1 -C A -3 6580 A ug. 24, 2017 ). Cl ai m 3 i s a lso 14 fo re cl ose d by

the r at ion al e in U

llm an . W e re

j ect Claim

4 because New Mexico law 15 does not preclude an insurer f rom requiring an insu red to choose the sam e U M/UI M 16 co ve ra ge ( or

to re j ec t UM /U IM co ve ra ge en tir el y ) fo r al l vehi cl es co ve re d by asin gle 17 pol ic y . Cl ai m

5 i s f or ec los ed by our de ci sio n in V

igi l v. Rio G rand

e In sur anc e of 18 Sa nt a Fe , 1997 -N MC A -1 24, ¶¶ 14- 17, 124 N

. M. 324 , 950 P

. 2d 2 97, w hic h ha s no t 19 be enm odi fi ed by an y la te r de ci sio ns b y our S upr em e Co urt. F ina lly , w e re j ec t C la im 20 6 be ca

use G E IC O w as r equir ed by lawto se nd the U M/U IM c ove ra ge f orm to Mr s. 21 Van Epps, and no thing in it discou raged her f rom selecting UM/U IM covera ge. 22 BACKGRO UND 23 I. Luer as v. GEIC O Gen eral Insuranc e C om pany3

1 { 4} The Luer ases boug ht an autom obile insurance policy for their thr ee v eh icles 2 fr o m G E I C O i n 2 0 0 9

. T h e p o l i c y h a d l i ab i l i t y l i m i t s o f $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 p e r p er son an d 3 $100 ,000 per occurr ence. GE ICO presented the Luerases with a form on which they 4 could select or rej ect U M/UI M coverage. The form did no t explain that th e U M/UI M 5 co ve ra ge s f

or e ac h ve hic le w oul d be sta ck ed

. T he fo rm pr ovi de d the L ue ra se s w ith 6 the opt ionof

se le ct ing the sa m e U M/U IM co ve ra ge fo r al l thr ee ve hic le s, or r ej ec tin g 7 U M/U IM c ove ra ge e nti re ly

. T he L ue ra se s r ej ec te d U M/U IM c over ag e. L at er , the 8 Luer ases added a fourth vehicle to their policy , and GE ICO again sent the Luer ases 9 a fo rm on whic h to se le ct or re

j ec t U M/U IM c ove ra ge . T he L ue ra se s di d no t si gn o r 10 ret urn t he for m

to GEICO. 11 { 5} In 2011, Plaintiff A ngela Luer as wa s the driver of, and her daughter a 12 passenger in, a vehicle that was involved in a crash with D efendant Maria Rodriguez. 13 Ms

. Ro dr igu ez ’ s auto m obi le ins uran ce cove ra ge w as not suf fi ci en t t o f

ull y 14 co m pe nsa te th e L ue ra se s f

or the inj ur ie s th ey

suf fe re d a s ar es ult

of the c ra sh. T he 1 5 L ue ra se s a s k e dG E I C O t o p r o v i d e U I M b e n e f i t s , b u tG E I C O d e n i e dt h e i r c la im 16 be ca use the y ha d r ej ec te d U M/U IM c ove ra ge . T he L ue ra se s th ensue d G E IC O a nd 17 Ms. R odriguez in the Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo County , arguing th at 18 their rej ection of UM/U IM coverage wa s invalid on sever al ground s. T he parties filed 19 cr oss -m oti ons fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t4

1 in G E IC O ’ s f

av or a nd de nie d the L ue ra se s’ cr oss -m oti on fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he 2 L ue ra se s ti m el y

appe al ed

. 3 II. Van E pps v. GEIC O Inde m nity C om pany 4 { 6} Mr. Van Epps’ wif e, W endy Van Epps, purchased a GE ICO insurance policy 5 in 2 010 on f

our ve hic le s th at

the c oupl e ow ned. T he pol ic y ha d li ab ili ty

li m its of 6 $50,000 per person and $1 00,000 per occurrence . Mr s. V an Epps selected U M/UI M 7 co ve ra ge of $25, 000 pe r pe rs on an d $50, 000 pe r oc curr en ce , w hic h w as le ss than th e 8 liabilitylim its. T wo day s later, GE ICO sent Mrs. Van Epps a form letter asking her 9 t o s e l e c t o r r e

j e c t U M / U I M c o v e r a g e . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e me n uo f o p t i o n s o n t h e f

o rm, 1 0 i f M r s . V a n E p p s w a n t e dt o s e l e c tU M / U I M c o v e r a g e , s h e h a d t o p u r c h a s e t h e s a me 11 level of coverage on a ll four vehicles, and if she wanted to rej ect UM/U IM covera ge, 12 she had to rej ect it on al l fo u r v ehicles. S he could no t select diffe rent U M/UI M 13 co ve ra ge li m its f

or ea ch ve hic le , or se le ct U M/U IM co ve ra ge on s om e ve hic le s and 14 rej ect it on others. T he form also did no t inform

Ms. V an Epps that the UM/U IM 1 5 pol ic ie s w o u l db e s t a c k e di n t h e e v e n t o f a n a c c i d e n tw i t h a n u n i n s u r e dor 16 unde ri nsur ed

m oto ri st. Mr s. V anE pps re j ec te d U M/U IM cove ra ge on a ll fo ur 17 ve hi cl es . 18 { 7} Whil e w orkin g a s a se curi ty of fi ce r at a loc al re sta

ur an t in 2012 , Mr

. V anE pps 19 w as thr eate ne d by

D ef en dant Ce sar Mon taño, w ho w as a tte m pti ng t o pa tr oni ze the5

1 re sta ur an t. Whe n M r. Mo ntaño l ef t i n hi s c ar , he dr ove it

tow ar ds Mr. Va n E pps, 2 hit tin g hi m

a nd knoc kin g him to the gr ound

. Mr

. Mo ntaño the n ba ck ed up h is c ar a nd 3 ran ov er

Mr

. V anE pps’ le g. Mr

. V anE pps sus ta ine d pe rm an en t i nj ur ie s. 4 { 8} Mr

. Mo ntaño a lso ha d aG E IC O ins ur an ce pol ic y , but it pr ovi de d onl y $25 , 000 5 in c ove ra ge , w hic h wa s insuf fi ci en t to cove r Mr

. V an E pps’ inj ur ie s. Mr

. V anE pps 6 soug ht UIM benefits under his own pol icy . G EI CO refused to pay based on Mrs. V an 7 Epps’ rej ection of UM/U IM covera ge. Mr

. Va n Epps then sued GEI CO and Mr. 8 Mon taño i n the E igh th Judi ci al D istri ct Co urt, T ao s C ounty , N ewMe xic o, r ai sin g 9 ar gum en ts s im ilar to those m ad e by the L ue ra se s. T he part ie s f ile d c ro ss- m oti ons fo r 10 sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j ud gm en t t o G E IC O , a nd 11 de nie d M r. V an

E pps’ c ro ss- m ot io n fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t. Mr

. V anE pps tim el y 12 ap pe al ed

. 13 DISC US SION 14 I. Stand ard of R eview 15 { 9} Ea ch cl ai m

i n t h i s ca s e i n v o l v es t h e i n t er p re t at i o n o f i n s u ra n ce policy language, 16 an d we t he refo re ap pl y de no vo rev ie w. Se e R um m el v. Le xi ngt on In s. Co. , 199 7- 17 NMS C-041, ¶ 60, 1 23 N. M. 752 , 945 P. 2d 970 (“ The interpretation of an insurance 18 co ntr ac t i s a m atte r of lawabout w hic h th e co urt ha s th e fi na l w or d. ”)

. W e al so a ppl y 19 de no vo rev ie w to di st ric t cou rt o rd ers gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t. Se e F arm ing ton6

1 P oli ce O

ffi ce rs A ss’n Co mmc’n W ork er s of A m er ic a L oc al 7911 v. Ci tyof 2 F arm ing ton , 200 6- N MC A -0 77, ¶ 13, 139 N

. M. 750 , 137 P. 3d 1204 (“ A n a ppe al f ro m 3 an order granting a m otion for su m m ary j udgm ent presents a question of lawsubject 4 to de nov o review .” ). 5 II. P lai nt if

fs ’ C lai m Th at t he P oli ci es an d R ejec tio n F or m s S ho ul d Ha ve 6 Ex pl ain ed Th at Th ei r U M /U IM Be ne fi ts Wou ld Be S ta cked , Th ei r C lai m 7 That t he R ejec tion F orm Was Am biguous Becau se It P urport ed t o 8 P ro hi bi t St ac k

in g, an d th e Lu er ase s’ Cla im Th at t he D ec lar at ion P age 9 Misrep resent s the Am ount of UM /UIM Coverage A re C ontrolled b y Our 10 De cision in U

llm an 11 { 10} In Jo rdan v . A lls tat e In sur anc e Co

. , 201 0- N MS C- 051, ¶ 22, 149 N

. M. 162 , 245 12 P.3 d 1 214, our Suprem e Court stated that to obtain a valid rej ection of UM/U IM 13 coverage, an insurer m ust “ (1) offer th e in sured UM/U IM coverage equal to his o r her 14 lia bil ity li m its , ( 2) inf

orm the ins ur ed ab out the pr em ium c ost s c or re spon din g to the 15 available levels of coverage, (3) obtain a w ritten rej ec t i on o f U M/UI M coverage e qual 16 to the liability lim its, and (4) incorporate that rej ection into the policy in a way that 17 affor ds the ins ured a fa ir opportun ity to reconsider the decision to re j ect[. ] ” Plaintiffs 18 argue that GE ICO ’ s insurance policy and its U M/UI M rej ection form violated 19 requirem ents (2) and (3) of Jo rdan because th ey did no t explain that UM/UI M 20 be ne fi ts w oul d be sta ck ed in the e ve nt o f a co lli sio n w itha n un ins ur ed or 21 underinsu red m otorist, thus m isrepresenting the am o u n t of UM /UIM coverage that 22 was act u a l l y a v ai labl e to th em . Se e B lac k’ s L awD ic tio nary162 3 ( 10th e d. 201 4)7

1 (d ef ini ng “ sta ck ing ” as “ [t ] he pr oc es s of obt ai nin g be ne fi ts f ro m ase co nd p oli cy

on 2 the sam e claim

when r ecov er y fr o m

the first policy

alone would be inadequate”). 3 Pl ai nti ff

s a lso a rg ue tha t GE IC O ’ s insur an ce pol ic y w as a m big uous a nd m isl ea din g 4 be ca use it co nta ine d langua ge that purp orte d to pr ohi bit sta ck ing , a lth oughthe a nti

5 st ack in g p ro vi si on was i nv al id un de r New Mex ic o l aw. 6 { 11} W e re ce ntl y

c onsi dered , a nd re

j ec te d, ide nti ca l c la im s in U llm an . 201 7- 7 N MC A -0 71, ¶

¶ 39- 52. T ha t de ci sio n is c ontro lli ng, a nd ac co rd ing ly w e af fi rm the 8 di st ric t co ur ts ’ or de rs reject in g t he se cla im s. Se e Arc o Ma te ri al s, In c. v. N.M. 9 Taxation & Re venue D ep’t , 199 4- N MC A -0 62, ¶ 3, 118 N

. M. 12, 87 8 P

. 2d 3 30 1 0 ( s t a t i n g t h a t af

o rma l C o u rto f

Ap p e a l s o p i n i o n i s c o n t r o l l i n g e v e n w h e n o u r S up r e me 11 Co ur t h as gra nt ed cert io rari to rev ie w th e cas e), re v’d on ot he r g ro un ds su b n om. 12 Blaze Constr. Co. , I

nc. v . N .M . T axation & Re venue D ep’t , 199 4- N MS C- 110, 118 13 N

. M. 647 , 884 P

. 2d 8 03. 14 { 12} In addition , the L uerases ar gue that GE ICO violated requirem ent (4) of Jo rdan

. 15 A lth oughthe L ue ra se s’ r ej ec tio n of U M/U IM c ove ra ge w as inc or por at ed int o th e 16 pol ic y via ade cl ar at ion s pa ge , the L ue ra se s arg ue that th e de cl ar at ion s pa ge 1 7 “ af fi rmat i v el y m i s re p re s en t s h o w m u ch co v er ag e w as re

je ct ed un d erGEI CO ’s 18 pol ic y ” be ca

use it sho w s “ tha t on ly

asin gle li m it of

U M c ove ra ge wa s w ai ve d” 19 w ith out

e xpl ai nin g th at

U M/U IM be ne fi ts w oul d be sta ck ed in the ev en t of a c oll isi on8

1 wit h a n u ni ns ur edor u nd eri ns ur edm ot or is t. U llm an re j ec te d c l a i m s th at

r equir em en ts 2 (2) and (3) of Jo rdan we re vio lated wher e th e in surer di d not explain that UM/UI M 3 be ne fit s wo ul d b e st ack ed , se e U llm an , 2017 -N MC A -0 71, ¶¶ 39- 52, a nd w e se e no 4 r e a s o n wh y U

llm an ’s ratio na le w oul d no t a lso appl y to the L ue ra se s’ de cl arations 5 page , w hi c h c on t a i ns t he s a m e a l l e ge d de f e c t . A c c or di ng l y , w e a f

f i rm t he district 6 c o u rt ’s r e

j e c t i o n o f t h i s c l a i m. 7 III . GE IC O’ s R eq ui re m en t Th at P lai nt if fs Ei th er P ur ch ase t he S am e Le ve l of 8 UM /UIM Insurance on Each Veh icle Covered by a Single Policy, or R ejec t 9 U M /U IM In su ra nc e En ti re ly, D id N ot V iol at e N ew M ex ic o L aw 10 { 13} Pl ai nti ff

s c la im that G E IC O ’ s “ al l- or -n oth ing ” re qui re m en t tha t the y pur ch as e 11 the sam e level of U M/UI M insurance on each of their vehicle s , o r reje ct U M/UI M 12 co ve ra ge on a ll ve hic le s, is co ntr ar y to our Su pr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Montaño v. 13 A lls tat e In de m nit

y Co

. , 2004-NMS C-020, 135 N. M. 681, 92 P.3d 1255 , and thu s was 14 an invalid offer of UM/UIM coverage. Under Plaintiffs’ view of the law, an insured 15 w ithf

our ve hic les m

us t be al low ed

to se le ct , say , U M/U IM c ove ra ge of 16 $100 , 000/ $200 , 000 on o ne ve hic le , $50 , 000/ $100 , 000 on the ne xt tw o ve hic le s, a nd 17 no UM/U IM covera ge at all on the fourth, or any other com

binatio n that the insu red 18 m ay de sir e. W e co nc lud e tha t P la int if fs have m isi nte rp re te d M

ontaño , and we rej ect 1 9 t h i s c l a i m.9

1 { 14} M

ontaño did not address the requirem ents for m aking a valid offer of U M/UI M 2 co ve rag e, bu t i ns te ad in vo lv ed th e “ jud ic ia ll y -cre at ed do ct rin e” o f st ack in g. Id

. ¶ 17. 3 Inthat c as e, th e pla int if f boug ht U M/U IM c ove ra ge s onhis f our ve hic le s, but

the 4 po li cy sai d t ha t h e co ul d o nl y

st ack two of th os e co ve rag es . Id

. ¶ 2. The plaintiff filed 5 a la wsu it all eg in g t ha t h e was en ti tl edto st ackall fou r UM/ UIM co ve rag es . Id

. 6 { 15} Wh e n t h e c a s e r e a c h e do u r S up r e me C o u rt , t h e p l a i n t i f f a s k e dt h e S up r e me 7 Co u rt t o “ d ec l ar e t h at al l an t i -s t ac k i n g cl au s es ar e v o i d as ag ai n s tNe w M ex i co ’s 8 stated policy in favor of stackin g.” Id

. ¶ 8. O ur S upr em e Co urt a cknow le dge d th at it s 9 cases “ ha[d] expressed a p ublic policy in favor of stacking[,] ” id. ¶ 9 , but r ej ec te d th e 10 plaintiff’ s argum ent, stating that “ requiring stacking in a ll cases on a take-it- or-leave11 it ba sis w oul d re duc e the fr ee dom of the part ie s to contr ac t for le ss cov er ag e an d thus 12 their fre edom

to decide how m

uch coverage they

can af ford,” which “ could frustrate, 13 rather than advance, the legislative intent be hind the [U M/UI M] statute.” Id. ¶ 16

. 14 T he S upr em e Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at the L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt i n r equir ing ins ur er s to 15 of fe r m ini m um le ve ls of U M/U IM co ve ra ge w as “ to en co ur ag e ins ur ed s to pur ch as e 16 such coverage[, ] ” and that “ [r] equiring st acking for all vehicles would put the insured 17 w ho o w ns m

ult ipl e ve hic le s inthe pos iti on o f pay ing f or a ll of the c ove ra ge s or 18 re j ec tin g U M[ /U IM ] c ove ra ge a lto ge the r, r athe r than de ci din g how m uc h c ove ra ge 19 they can af ford.” Id

. ¶ 16. T he S upr em e Co urt st at ed that i f anins ur an ce c om pany10

1 wants to p reclude stacking, it “ shou ld obt ain wr itten rej ections of stacking in order 2 to lim it its liabil ity

based on an anti-stacking provisio n.” Id

. ¶ 19

. 3 { 16} T he S upr em e Co urt the n we nt on to expla in howa n in sur an ce c om pany c oul d 4 go a bout obt ai nin g an a de qua te w ri tte n r ej ec tio n of sta ck ing : 5 A s an il lu st ratio n of our hol din g, in a m

ult ipl e- ve hic le pol ic y

ins ur ing 6 thr ee c ar s, the ins ur er sha ll de cl ar e the pr em ium ch ar ge fo r ea chof the 7 thr ee U M co ve rages an d a llo wthe ins ur ed to re j ec t, in w ri tin g, a ll or 8 som e of the off

ered c overages. T hus, hy poth etically , i n the case of a 9 $2 5,0 00 po li cy , if t he p r e mi u m foron e UM co ve rag e is $6 5, t wo 1 0 co ve r a g e s i s a n a d d i t i o n a l $ 6 0 , a n d th r e e c o v e r a g e s $ 5 7 m o r e, the 11 ins ur ed w ho p ai d a ll thr ee ( fo r a tot al pr em ium of $18 2) w oul d be 12 co vere d up to $75, 000 in U M b odi ly inj ur y c ove ra ge . H ow ev er , the 13 ins ur ed

m ay r ej ec t, in w ri tin g, the thi rd av ai la ble co ve ra ge an d pay

$12 5 14 fo r $50, 000 of U M cov er ag e; or the ins ur ed m ay re j ec t, in w ri tin g, the 15 second and th ird coverages and p ay $65 for $25,000 of U M coverage; 16 or

the ins ur ed

m ay r ej ec t a ll thr ee U M c ove ra ge s. 17 Id

. ¶ 20. O ur Su

pr em e Court co nc lud ed tha t “ an ins ur an ce pol ic y that c om pli es w ith 1 8 th i s r e qu i r e m e n tw i l l a v o i dt h e c o n c l u s i o n . . . t h a ta n t i

- s t a c k i n g c l au s e s a r e a lm ost 19 inherently

am bigu ous and are no long er e ffec tive at precluding stackin g.” Id

. ¶ 21. 20 { 17} Pl ai nti ff

s in te rp re t this “ ill ustratio n” in M ontaño a s r equir ing a ll in sur er s to 21 of fe r U M/U IM c ove ra ge on a pe r- ve hic le ba sis a nd a s pr ohi bit ing a n in sur er f ro m 22 of fe ri ng U M/U IM c ove ra ge on a pe r- pol ic y

ba sis

. Bu t P la int if

fs f orge t the c ont ex t 23 tha t led to the inc lus ionof thi s pa ssa ge . I n M

ontaño , our Suprem e Court considered 24 ana rg um en t tha t st ac kin g sh oul d be re qui re d on a ll ve hic le s c ove re d by am ult i2 5 v eh i cl e p o l i cy. 2 0 0 4 -N M SC -0 2 0 , ¶ ¶ 8 -2 1 . Th e C o u rt re co g n i ze d N ew Me x i co ’s11

1 publ ic pol ic y

in favor of sta ck ing , but re

j ec te d the pla int if

fs ’ a rg um en t ba se d onboth 2 fr eedo m -o f- co ntr ac t gr ound s and a c onc er n th at re qui rin g all-or-nothing policies 3 would discou rage the purchase of UM/U IM insurance. Thus, in the passage on which 4 Pl ai nti ff

s r el y , our S upr em e Co urt w as m er el y e xpl ai nin g w ha t an in sur an c e co m pany 5 w oul d have to do if

it wan t ed to obtain an eff ective re j ection of sta ck

ing by an 6 in su red . By

it s o wn t erms, Montaño’s “ illust ration” does not d escribe a m andatory 7 requirem ent im

posed on all insurers offer ing UM/UI M coverage, but rather provides 8 a v ol un ta ry

op ti on forth os e in su rers th atdo no t wi sh to off er s ta ck in g. 9 { 18} W e co nc lud e tha t M ontaño did no t consider whether a utom obile ins urers 10 shou ld b e re qui re d to of fe r pol ic yhol de rs U M/U IM c ove ra ge on a pe r- ve hic le ba sis , 11 m uc h l es s i m

po se su ch a req ui rem en t. Se e P adi lla v. Sta te F arm M ut. A uto

. I ns. Co

. , 12 2002 -N MC A -0 01, ¶

10, 131 N

. M. 419 , 38 P

. 3d 1 87 ( ex pla ini ng tha t “ ca se s are not 13 au tho ri ty

f or pr opos iti ons not

c onsi de re d” ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itation 14 om itted)). O the r than th e ill ustratio n in M ontaño , Pl ai nti ff

s have c ite d to no a

uth or ity 15 supp orting th eir contention th at G EI CO m ust offer U M/UI M coverage on a per

16 ve hic le ba sis, a s op pose d to ape r- pol ic y ba sis

. Furthe r, w e fi nd n oth ing in the 17 U M/U IM statut e tha t pr ovi de s othe rw is e. See N MS A 197 8, § 66 -5 -3 01; se e als o 18 B rig gs v . A m . Na t’ l Prop. & Ca s. Co

. , 209 P. 3d 1 181, 118 5- 86 ( Co lo. Ct

. App. 200 9) 19 (h old ing that i nsur ed

ha s no r igh t t o be of

fe re d U M/U IM co ve ra ge on a pe r- ve hic le12

1 ba sis und er

ne ar ly ide nti cal Co lo ra do s ta tut e)

. A cc or din gly , G E IC O ’ s of fe r of 2 UM/ UIM co ve rag e o n a pe r-p ol ic y ba si s was no t co nt rary to New M ex ic o l aw. 3 IV . GE IC O Was N ot R eq ui re d to Ob ta in an A dd it ion al R ej ec ti on of U M /U IM 4 Coverage Whe n th e Lue rases Ad ded An other Ve hicle t o Their P olicy 5 { 19} At som e p oint after purchasing autom obile ins urance and re j ecting UM/U IM 6 c o v e r a g e , b u t b e f

o r e t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e Lu e r a s e s a d d e d af o u rt h v e h i c l e t o t h e i r

p o l i c y. 7 At that tim e, GE ICO sent a U M/UI M rej ection form to the Luera ses, but the Luer ases 8 did not sig n or r et ur n it

. T he L ue rases arg ue d in the dis tr ic t c ourt, a s th ey do o n 9 ap pe al , that a ddi ng the f ourth ve hic le w as a ne w an d dif fe re nt of fe r of co ve ra ge , a nd 10 G E IC O ’ s f

ai lur e to o bt ai n a ne wU M/U IM r ej ec tio n f orm r en de re d th e L ue ra se s’ 11 earl ie r re

j ec tio n of U M/U IM c ove ra ge inv al id. 12 { 20} T he dis tr ic t co urt re j ec te d thi s ar gum en t, re ly ing on o ur de ci sio n in V

igi l , 199 7- 13 N MC A -1 24. I n V

igi l w e he ld tha t w he n an in sur er ha s obta ine d a vali d r ej ec tio n of 14 U M/U IM ins ur an ce , the ins ur er is not req ui red to obt ai n ane wr ej ec tio n f ro m the 15 in su red each ti m e a ne w v eh ic le is ad de d t o t he po li cy . Id

. ¶¶ 14-17. In rea ching th at 16 co nc lus ion , w e not ed

that the r el ev an t st at

ute doe s no t r equir e tha t U M/U IM c ove ra ge 17 be inc lud ed

in “ a re ne w al pol ic y

w he re the na m ed

ins ur ed ha s r ej ec te d th e co ve ra ge 18 in connection with a policy previouslyissued to him or her by the sam e insurer. ” Id

. 19 ¶ 14 (alter ation om itted) (quotin g NMSA1978 , § 66-5-301(C) ( 1983 )). W e also noted 20 tha t the pol ic y

in que sti on p ro vid ed tha t any ve hic le s th at the ins ur ed

bou ght w oul d13

1 be auto m at ic al ly

a dde d to the pol ic y , w hic h m eant tha t “ the re [ w as ] no c hange in the 2 ins ur an ce c ontra ct

or the c ove ra ge pur ch as ed

pur suant t o th at

c ontra ct w he n a ve hic le 3 [w as] added to the pol icy .” Id

. ¶ 15. W e co nclu de d th at inthe se c ir cu m stanc es , the 4 ad dit ionof

ve hic le s di d no t c re at e a ne wpol ic y , a nd the re fo re no n ewr ej ec tio n of 5 UM/ UIM co ve rag e was req ui red

. Id

. ¶ ¶ 16- 17. 6 { 21} He re, the district court correc tly determ ined that no new rej ection of UM/U IM 7 co ve ra ge w as r equi re d w he n th e L ue ra se s a dde d ave hic le to the ir pol ic y . T he 8 Le gislature has not am ended Section 66-5-301 (C) since V igi l w as de ci de d. T he 9 U M/U IM r ej ec tio n f

orm that the L ue ra se s si gne d w he n th ey or igi na lly

bou ght the 10 pol ic y inf orm ed the m m ult ipl e tim es tha t the ir

r ej ec tio n of

U M/U IM c ove ra ge w oul d 11 autom atically

apply to any vehicles added to the policy unless th e L uerases inform ed 12 G E IC O oth er

w ise

. F ir st, the f

orm sa id tha t “ m

y U nin sur ed

/Un de ri nsur ed

Mo tor ist 13 Coverage ele ction appli es to this p olicy and al l vehicles insu red under this pol icy 14 until I notify

[G EI CO] , in writing, th at I wish t o change m y election.” Ne xt, the form 15 advis ed

the L ue ra se s that “ [m ] y

U nin sur ed

/U nde ri nsur ed

Mo tor ist c ove ra ge e le ct ion 16 sha ll ap ply

to an y r en ew al , re ins ta te m en t, subs tit ute , am en de d, al te re d, m odi fi ed , or 17 replace d poli cy

with this com

pany or any aff iliated G ov e r

nm e nt E m pl oy e e s Insurance 18 Com pany .” Finally , in the section o f th e form wher e th e Luerases chec ked that they 19 w ish ed

to re j ec t U M/U IM co ve rag e, the f orm state d th at

“ I unde rs tand tha t un til I14

1 inform [G EI CO] in writing that I w ish to add UM/U IM Covera ge to m y insurance 2 pol ic y , no a

uto m obi le ins ur an ce pol ic y is su ed to m e by [ G E IC O ] w ill pr ovi de 3 coverage if I am

injure d or m

y property is dam aged by an unin sured or underinsu red 4 m ot or is t.” T he se pr ovi sio ns m ad e it ab undantl y cl ear tha t any ve hic le s a dde d to the 5 policy would not cr ea t e a new policy , and therefore no newrej ection of UM/U IM 6 co ve ra ge w as r equir ed

. 7 { 22} T he L ue ra se s ar gue , how ev er , that V igi l h a s b e e n “mo d i f

i e d ” b y o u r

S up r e me 8 Co urt’ s de ci sio ns i n M ontaño , 200 4- N MS C- 020, ¶ 20, a nd Jo rdan v . A lls tat e 9 In sur anc e Co m

pany , 201 0- N MS C- 051, ¶ ¶ 20- 22, 149 N

. M. 162 , 245 P

. 3d 1 214. As 10 we ha ve alr ead y

ex pl ai ne d, M

ontaño wa s concerned with how insurance com panies 11 co uld obt ai n ava lid

w ai ve r of

sta ck ing , no t w ithhowto obt ai n ava lid r ej ec tio n of 12 UM/ UIM co ve rag e. M ontaño did

not e ve n c onsi de r, m

uc h le ss h old , that V

igi l wa s 13 m odi fi ed

or ove rr ule d. I n Jo rdan , our

S upr em e Co ur t co ns olida te d th re e ca se s in 14 which the issue was whether the insureds had rej ected UM/UI M cov erage when they 15 initiallyboug ht their pol i c i e s. 2 01 0- N M S C

- 05 1, ¶¶ 3-12. T he Jo rdan Court explained 16 what an insurer m

ust do to obtain a valid rej ection of UM/U IM covera ge and held that 17 a pol ic y

that f ai le d to m ee t those req ui rem en ts w oul d be r ef orm ed to pr ovi de 18 UM/U IM covera ge in the sam e am ount as the policy ’ s liabilitylim its. 2010-NMSC19 051, ¶

¶ 3- 12, 20- 21. I n Jo rdan our Suprem e Court h ad no occasion to consider15

1 whether a newrej ection form would be required if a vehicle w as added to the pol icy 2 a t a l a t e r d a t e , a n d n o t hin g in Jo rdan e ve n su gge sts , m uc h le ss h old s, that our 3 de ci sio n in V

igi l s h o u l db e mo d i f

i e d

. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e r e

j e c tt h e L u e r a s e s ’ c l a i m. 4 V . Th e L e t t e r a n d U M / U I M O p t i o n F o r m T h a t G E I C O S e n t t o M r s . V an 5 Epps We re N ot Im proper or A m biguous 6 { 23} Mr

. Van Epp s arg ue s th at c er ta in G E IC O doc um en ts w er e m isl ea din g and 7 dis co ur ag ed

Mr s. Van Epp s f

ro m se le ct ing U M/U IM c ove ra ge . Mr s. V anE pps 8 or igi na lly

se le ct ed U M/U IM c ove ra ge a t the $25 , 000/ $50, 000 le ve l, w hic h w as le ss 9 than th e $50, 000/ $100 , 000 bodi ly inj ur y li ab ili ty li m its

. T w o day s late r, G E IC O se nt 10 her both a letter and an “ optio n form ” on which to sele ct or rej ect U M/UI M coverage. 11 T he le tte r sa id tha t “ [i ] t i s im portant tha t w e re ce ive thi s f orm ba ck in orde r to 1 2 co n t i n u e y o u r p o l i c y a t t h e c u rr e n t p r e m i u m , s o p l e a s e d o n ’ t d e l a y . I f y o udo n ot 13 co m ple te thi s fo rm , w e ar e re qui re d to m ak e ad j ustm en ts t o y our

c ove ra ge , w hic h w ill 14 result in an increase in y our prem ium .” Ne ither the option form nor the letter 15 ex pla ine d w ha t “ ad

j ustm en ts” w oul d be m ad e or w hy the pr em ium w oul d inc re as e if 16 the form

we re not signed and returned to GE ICO . Mr . V an Epps argues that G EI CO 17 sent the opti on form

to “ discourage” his wife from purchasing UM/UI M coverage, 18 an d that the op tio n f orm c au se d he r to b el ie ve that “ in o rd er to co m ple te the 19 pr oc es sin g of

he r ne wpol ic y , she ha d to sig n t he [o pt ionf orm ]

. ” Mr

. V anE pps 20 co nte nds tha t hi s w if

e’ s re j ec tio n of U M/U IM co ve ra ge is the re fo re inv al id b ec au se16

1 “ G E IC O ’ s sc he m e of

se ndi ng i ts in su red s thi s [ opt ionf orm ] a nd [ le tte r] a ft er

the 2 ins ur ed s have se le ct ed

U M/U IM c ove ra ge . . . vio la te d N ewMe xic o publi c pol ic y by 3 m i s l ea d i n g an dd i s co u ra g i n g t h e p u rc h as e o f U M / UI M co v er ag e[ .]” 4 { 24} T o the ex te nt tha t Mr

. V an E pps ar gue s tha t G E IC O sho uld not ha ve se nt the 5 letter, his argum ent lacks m erit. As GE ICO correc tly point s out, our Suprem e Court 6 has held that w here, as here, an insured selects UM/U IM covera ge that is lower than 7 the pol ic y ’ s lia

bil ity lim its , tha t func tio ns as a re j ec tio n of the m ax im

um am ount

of 8 co ve rag e st atut or il y a v ai labl e. See Progr essive Northwestern Ins. Co. v. W eed 9 W arr ior Se rv s. , 201 0- N MS C- 050, ¶

¶ 14- 15, 149 N

. M. 157, 245 P

. 3d 1 209 (r ef le ct ing 10 tha t “ [a ] s S ec tio n 66 -5 -3 01 r equir es in su re rs to of fe r U M/U IM c ove ra ge up t o th e 11 lia bil ity li m its of the pol ic y , it fo llo w s that the ch oic e by the ins ur ed to p ur ch as e an y 12 lower am ount is a rej ection”). Thus, to give effe ct to Mrs. Van Epps’ choice, GE ICO 13 w as r equir ed

to se nd h er

af orm on whic h to ind ic at e he r sele ct ionof ale ve l of 14 UM/ UIM co ve rag e. Jo rdan , 20 10 -NMSC -0 51 , ¶ 2. 15 { 25} Mr. Van Epps acknowledges that GE ICO wa s required to obtain a written 16 w ai ve r fr om Mr s. V an E pps, but co m pla ins tha t “ G E IC O did not in any w ay ind ic at e 17 in i ts i nit ia l a

ppl ic at ionthat i t w oul d l at er be se ndi ng [ anopt ionf orm ] w itha 18 [letter] [, ] ” and question s why GE ICO did no t do so at t hat tim e. Mr. Van Epps cites 19 no leg al au tho ri ty in suppo rt of his ar gum en t tha t G E IC O w as r equir ed to pr ovi de the17

1 opt ionf

orm a t the ti m e of

Mr s. Van E pps’ or igi na l a ppl ic at ionf

or ins ur an ce , a nd 2 th eref or e we as su m e th atno ne ex is ts . Se e In re D oe , 1984-NMS C-024, ¶ 2, 100 N. M. 3 764, 676 P. 2d 1329 (“ Issues raised in appellate b riefs w hich are unsuppo rted by cited 4 authoritywill not be review ed by us on app ea l .” ). Ac co rdingly , w e re j ect Mr. Van 5 Epps’ argum ent that GE ICO acted im properly by sending the optio n form and letter 6 to Mrs . Van Ep ps . 7 { 26} As f

or Mr. Van Epps’ argum ents that the opt ion form an d l et ter w ere 8 am bigu ous and th us “ discouraged” the purchase o f U M/UI M insurance, we disagree. 9 Whil e it is tru e tha t the le tte r sta te d th at f ai lur e to ret ur n t he fo rm wo u l d l ead to an 10 inc re as e in the ins ur an ce pr em ium , nothin g in the le tte r or fo rm sug ge ste d th at

Mr s. 11 V anE pps ha d to reject U M/U IM co ve ra ge to p re ve nt h er pr em ium f ro m r isi ng. T he 12 opt ionf

orm a llo w ed he r to s el ec t U M/U IM c ove ra ge a t the sa m e le ve l as be fo re , to 1 3 s e l e c t U M / U I M c o v e r a g e a tad i f f e r e n tl e v e l , o r

t o r e je c tUM / U I M c o v e r a g e e n t i r e l y. 14 A cc or din gly , w e re

j ec t M r. V anE pps’ a rg um en t t ha t th e opt ionf orm im pr ope rl y 15 discouraged the pu rchase of UM/U IM covera ge. 16 CON CLU SION 17 { 27} Fo r a l l o f t h es e r ea s o n s , we a f f i r m t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt s ’ gr an t s o f G EI CO ’s 18 m otion s for sum

m ary j udgm ent and denials of Plaint iffs’ cross-m otion s for sum m ary 19 j udgm en t.18

1 { 28} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 3 EM IL J. KI EH N E, Ju dg e

4 I CONCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 6 ST EP HE N G. F R EN C H, Ju dg e19

1 ATT REP , Jud ge (spec ially concu rring). 2 { 29} I co nc ur

w ithtod ay ’ s op ini on, but w ri te se parate ly

a s I ha ve re se rv at ion s a

bout 3 U llm an , 201 7- N MC A -0 71, the de ci sio n up on w hic h S ec tio n I I of the D isc uss ionis 4 pr em ise d. T he Co urt i n U llm an broadly

held that an i n surer, in offering U M/UI M 5 coverage on a m

u l t i p le-vehicle insurance policy , is not required to explain stacked 6 co ve ra ge or

inf orm the ins ur ed

about pr em ium c ost s for each ava ila

ble le ve l of 7 st ack edco ve rag e. Id

. ¶¶ 1 5, 4 4. 8 {3 0 } U

llm an r el i e d h e a v i l y o n , a n d a d o p t e d , t h e T e n t h C ir cu it’ s appr oa ch in 9 Ja ram ill o v . G ov ernm en t E m plo ye es In sur anc e Co

. , 573 F. App’ x 733 (10th Cir. 10 20 14 ) ( no n- pr eced en ti al ). Se e U llm an , 20 17 -NMCA- 07 1, ¶¶34 -3 8. Ja ram ill o , in 11 tur n, hun g it s ana ly sis on Jo rdan , 201 0- N MS C- 051, w hic h se t ou t a f our -f ac tor te st 12 an in su rer m

us t fo ll ow i n o rd er t o o bt ai n ava li d reject io n of UM/ UIM co ve rag e. Id

. 13 ¶ 30. T he c ir cu m stanc es be fo re the S upr em e Co urt i n Jo rdan , how ev er , w er e dif fe re nt 14 fr om tho se in Ja ram ill o . I n Jo rdan , the ins ur ed s a cc ep te d U M/ UIM co ve ra ge a t a 15 level lower than their policy liability lim its; beca use one o r mor e o f t he Jo rdan 16 factors w ere not m et, the policies we re reform ed to provid e U M/UI M coverage e qual 1 7 t o t h e p o l i c y l i m i t s . 2 0 1 0

- N M S C

- 0 5 1 , ¶ ¶ 5

- 1 2 , 31- 35. Inc ontra st, the ins ur ed s in 18 Ja ram ill o ( a s w e l l a s i n t h e c a s e s b e f o r e u s t o d a y ) r e

j e c t e dU M / U I M c o v e r ag e20

1 en tir el y but w er e ne ve r inf

orm ed of the tot al le ve l of

sta ck ed c ove ra ge a ct

ua lly be ing 2 of fere d. Ja ram ill o , 573 F

. App’ x a t 73 4- 36, 745 , 747 -4 8. 3 {3 1 } Me ch an ic al ly

appl y ing Jo rdan , the T en th Ci rc uit de te rm ine d tha t an ins ur er is 4 o nly oblig ated to set out the prem ium charges f

or eac h level of UM/U IM 5 co ve ra ge —i t ne ed

not inf orm the ins ur ed

of the tot al a m ount of

sta ck ed c ove ra ge 6 av ai labl e ateach lev el

. Ja ram ill o , 5 7 3 F. Ap p ’x at 748 -4 9; se e als o U

ll m an , 201 7- 7 N MC A -0 71, ¶

15 . Th e T en th C ir cu it ratio na liz ed that i t ne ed

not a ddr es s st ac kin g 8 because st acking com es i nto play as a j udicially -cre ated d octrine only after an insured 9 ha s p ur ch as edUM/UI M co ve rag e. See Ja ram ill o , 573 F

. App’ x a t 74 4- 46. T he T en th 10 Ci rcu it c onstru ed Jo rdan a s be ing div or ce d f ro m our S upr em e Co urt’ s st ac kin g 11 j ur isp ru de nc e, pr oc la im ing tha t “ ex ce pt fo r the ge ne ra l re fe re nc e to M o n t a [ ñ ]o , the 12 Jo rdan co urt w as sil en t onthe iss ue of sta ck ing , an d it did not cl earl y ti e sta ck ing to 13 its new U M/UI M coverage- rej ection standard.” Id

. at 7 44

. 14 { 32} I think thi s to be an inaccurate gloss on ou r Suprem e Court’ s jur isprudence. 15 M ontaño requires “ insurers [to] disclose the prem ium costs for eac h available level 16 of sta ck ed c ove ra ge a s am eans o f guarante ei ng tha t c onsu m er s c ankno w ing ly 17 exercise their statutor y rights to UM/U IM covera ge.” W he lan v . Sta te F

arm M ut. 18 A uto

. I

ns. Co

. , 201 4- N MS C- 021, ¶ 25, 329 P. 3d 646 ( ci tin g M ontaño , 2004-NMS C19 020, ¶ ¶ 17, 20) ; se e als o J

orda n , 201 0- N MS C- 051, ¶ 24 ( “ In M

o n t a [ ñ ]o , this Court21

1 struck t h [e ] balance [betwee n free dom of contract and the int ent of the UM/U IM 2 sta tut e] by

r equir ing ins ur an ce carr ie rs to pro vid e insure ds wi th the pr em ium c ost s f or 3 ea cha va ila

ble le ve l of

sta ck ed c ove ra ge in or de r to al low ins ur ed s to c ontra ct f or the 4 am ount

of c ove ra ge the y

c ana ff or d and w an t to pur ch as e. ”)

. N otw ith standi ng this , 5 our Co urt i n U

llm an a do pt e d t he r e a so ni ng o f Ja ra m ill o who le sa le

. Se e U llm an , 6 20 17 -NMCA- 07 1, ¶¶34 -3 8, 4 3. 7 { 33} The problem with re l i e vi ng i ns ur e r s of a ny o bl i gat i ont o di sc l os e stacked 8 co ve ra ge le ve ls whe n obta ini ng U M/U IM r ej ec tio ns— as Ja ram ill o a nd U llm an 9 pe rm it—

be co m es appare nt whe n e xa m ini ng the f ac ts at i ssu e in the c as es be fo re our 10 Court t o d ay. In these cases, GE ICO rea dily adm its that it sells its insu reds stacked 11 UM/U IM covera ge. G EI CO, however, does not explain this to its in sureds, and does 12 not dis cl ose the tot al a m ount of sta ck ed c ove ra ge be ing of

fe re d a t e ac h pr em ium 13 level. Alook at GE ICO ’ s UM/U IM Se lection/Reje ction F orm , which is reproduced 14 in r el ev an t part

be low , is w orthw hil e: 15 UM /U I M B od ily Inju ry Cov e ra g e L imi ts 16 Your B odily

Injury L iability Coverag e L imit i s: $50,000/$100,000 17 Cov e ra g e L imi t 18 Per Person/Per Ac cident VEHI CL E1 VEHI CL E2 VEHI CL E3 VEHI CL E4 19 ( ) $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 / $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 6 .60 $ 3 6 .60 $ 3 6 .60 $ 3 6 .60 20 ( ) $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 / $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 4 .90 $ 5 4 .90 $ 5 4 .90 $ 5 4 .90 21 ( ) $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 / $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 73.20 $ 73.20 $ 73.20 $ 73.20 22 ( ) $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 / $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 .40 $ 8 2 .40 $ 8 2 .40 $ 8 2 .4022

1 ( ) $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 / $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 9 5.60 $ 9 5.60 $ 9 5.60 $ 9 5.60 2 ( ) $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 / $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 103. 30 $ 103. 30 $ 103. 30 $ 103. 30 3 ( ) $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 / $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 104.40 $ 104.40 $ 104.40 $ 104.40 4 ( ) $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 / $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 113.90 $ 113.90 $ 113.90 $ 113.90 5 ( ) $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 / $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 121.20 $ 121.20 $ 121.20 $ 121.20 6 ( ) $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 / $ 1 M I L $ 12 4.80 $ 12 4.80 $ 12 4.80 $ 12 4.80 7 ( ) $ 1 M I L/ $ 1 M I L $ 145. 40 $ 145. 40 $ 145. 40 $ 145. 40 8 Looking at the first line, for exam ple, G EI CO offer s the insu red t he statutory 9 m ini m um a m ount of U M/U IM c ove ra ge of $25, 000 pe r pe rs on/ $50, 000 pe r ac ci de nt. 10 See N MS A 197 8, §§ 6 6- 5- 301 (1 983) , 66- 5- 215 (1 983)

. T he ins ur ed ha s no opt ion 11 of pur ch as ing thi s c ove ra ge on, fo r ins tanc e, onl y one or tw o ve hic le s. I nst ea d, if

the 12 insured elects this co v er ag e, she m ust pay four prem ium s. Y et G EI CO’ s UM/U IM 13 Selec tion/ Rej ection Form m akes no m ention o f the fa ct t h at i f fo u r prem ium s are 14 pa id , th e in su redis en ti tl edto st ack edco ve rag e o f fo urti m es th e li st edco ve rag e (e.g ., 15 $1 00 ,00 0/ $2 00 ,00 0, n ot $2 5,0 00 /$ 50 ,00 0)

. 16 {3 4 } Co nsi ste nt w iththe hol din gs i n J a r a m ill o an d U

llm an , G E IC O cl ai m s that it 17 ha s no obl iga tio n to dis cl ose to its ins ur ed s the sta ck ed c ove ra ge a m ount s. I t r ea sons 18 that this is a re

je ct ion c a s e , g o v e rn e db y Jo rdan , not a sta ck ing ca se . Whil e it is tru e 19 tha t this c as e is n ot n ec es sari ly gov er ne d by “ j udi ci al sta ck ing , ” thi s m iss es the m ar k. 20 G E IC O sta ck s onit s own in iti at ive —no t be ca use it is j udi ci al ly

im pose d a ft er

the 21 fact

. Se e Ja ram ill o v . P rov ide nc e W ashi ngt on I

ns. Co

. , 1994 -N MS C- 018, ¶ 4 n. 1, 11723

1 N

. M. 337 , 871 P

. 2d 1343 (e xpl ai nin g the dif fe re nc e be tw ee n “

j udi ci al sta ck ing ” an d 2 “ pol ic y sta ck ing ”) ; se e als o J

aram ill o , 573 F. App’ x at 7 45 (“ GE ICO m aintains that 3 it does sta ck ve hic le ins ur an ce co ve ra ge in N ew Me xic o an d that it ha s never 4 emp l o yed an t i -s t ac k i n g l an g u ag e i n s u ch p o l i ci es t o av o i dag g re g at i n g an i n s u re d ’s 5 UM / UI M coverage. ”). Per haps GE ICO has chosen to offer stacked U M/UI M 6 coverage beca

use of the long li ne of N ew Mexico cases im posin g stacking byj udicial 7 construction wher e the insurer has not obtained a valid wa iver of stacked covera ge. 8 Se e M ontaño , 2004 -N MS C- 020, ¶¶ 9- 14 ( sum m ar iz ing the S upr em e Co urt’ s st ac kin g 9 j ur isp ru de nc e)

. T he r ea son G E IC O sta ck s, how ev er , is o f no i m port. G E IC O sta ck s. 10 {3 5 } But GE ICO does not d isclose to th e i n s u re d t h e l evel of stacked UM/U IM 11 co ve ra ge that i t i s ac tua lly of fe ri ng. T his runs af

oul of the gui din g pr inc ipl e be hin d 12 Jo rdan —that “ in order for the off er and rej ection requirem ents of [the U M/UI M 13 sta tut e] to ef

fe ct ua te the pol ic y

of e xpandi ng U M/U IM c ove ra ge , the ins ur er is 14 re qui re d to m ea nin gfu llyoff er suc h c ove ra ge a nd the ins ur ed m ust kn ow ing ly and 15 int el lig en tlyac t to rej ect it before it can be excluded from the policy .” Marckstadt v. 16 Lo ck he ed M art in C orp. , 201 0- N MS C- 001, ¶ 16, 147 N.M. 6 78 , 228 P

. 3d 4 62; see 17 Jo rdan , 20 10 -NMSC -0 51 , ¶ 18 (ci ting M arc ks tad t , 2 01 0- N M S C

- 001, ¶¶ 16-17). “ If[ , 18 as here, ] the policy

docum entation is u nclear, the insured will not be a ble to m ake an 19 inform ed decision w hether to purchase and stay with that poli cy (and that insurance24

1 com pany) o r t o o pt for another.” R odri gue z v . W ind sor I ns. Co

. , 199 4- N MS C- 075, 2 ¶ 21, 118 N

. M. 127 , 879 P

. 2d 7 59. G ive n G E IC O ’ s U M/U IM S el ec ti on /R ej ec tio n 3 Fo rm an dt h e f

ac tt h at GEI CO s t ac k s fr o m t h e o u t s et , i two u l d s e e m t h at GEI CO ’s 4 offer s of UM/U IM covera ge in these cases m ay be “ so inadequ ate or m isleading as 5 to ren de r [ th e Pl ai nt iff s’] reject io n i ne ffec ti ve un de r th e [UM/ UIM] st atut e.” 6 M arc ks tadt , 20 10 -NMSC -0 01 , ¶ 16

. U llm an , however, has charted a different course. 7 Under U

llm an , G E I C O h a s c o m

p l i e d w i t h t h e f

o u r - f a c t o r t e s t i n Jo rdan a nd n o 8 furthe r an al y sis is re qui re d. 9 { 36} Notw ithstand ing my concerns about whether U llm an was co rrec tl y de ci de d, I 10 co nc ur

in thi s c as e be ca

use thi s is sue w as r ec en tly de ci de d by

apane l of

our Co urt, 11 in a pu bl is he d o pi ni on , whi ch no w await s d eci si on by the Supr em e Co ur t. See A rco 12 Materials, Inc. , 199 4- N MC A -0 62, ¶ 19 ( “N otw ith standi ng m y c onc er ns a bout 13 w he the r the iss ue w as c or re ct ly de ci de d .

. . , how ev er , I be lie ve it is m or e im portant 14 fo r thi s C ourt t o f

oll owit s own pr ec ed en t than to a llo wthe r igh ts o f the part ie s to be 15 gove rn ed

by w hic h pane l of

j udge s is a ssi gne d to the c as e. ” (B la ck , J. spe ci al ly 16 concurring)).

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 18 JE N N IF ER L. A TT R EP , Ju dg e