Opinion ID: 2659283
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subsection (b)

Text: The heirs argue that even if the disclosure sufficed under subsection (g), we would need to determine whether the disclosure satisfied subsection (b). This argument is rejected. To assess the logic of the heirs’ reading, we must consider the respective functions of subsections (g) and (b). Subsection (g) addresses the validity of an insured’s decision to decline all UIM coverage; subsection (b) establishes a presumptive amount of UIM coverage and addresses an insured’s decision to buy some, but not all, of that amount. We have concluded that UPS validly rejected all UIM coverage. But the heirs argue that even if UPS rejected all UIM coverage, we must decide if UPS had enough information to decline the presumptive amount of UIM coverage for “new” policies. This reading would create an absurdity. An insured could knowingly reject all UIM coverage, but nonetheless be duped into buying the presumptive amount for “new” 14 policies. As a result, a subsection (g) rejection would be valid only if the insurer’s form satisfied both subsections (b) and (g). This anomaly would render subsection (g) meaningless. Regardless of whether subsection (g) were satisfied, the availability of UIM coverage would turn on the sufficiency of the disclosure under subsection (b). To give subsection (g) any meaning, we cannot accept the heirs’ argument that the rejection must satisfy both subsection (b) and subsection (g).