Opinion ID: 867248
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of a DOI-approved form

Text: ¶ 19 American Standard argues that, in amending § 20-259.01 in 1992 to permit the use of a DOI-approved form, the legislature intended to provide a method for insurers to demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirement to make a written offer of UM/UIM coverage. It asserts that it complied with § 20-259.01 by providing Ballesteros with a DOI-approved selection form. ¶ 20 As noted, the legislature, through a series of amendments, modified § 20-259.01 to provide that [t]he selection of limits or rejection of [UM/UIM] coverage by a named insured or applicant on a form approved by the [DOI] director shall be valid for all insureds under the policy. 1992 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 147, § 1 (2d Reg. Sess.); 1994 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 304, § 1 (2d Reg. Sess.). The legislature adopted these amendments to remedy the fact-intensive inquiry Giley engendered regarding whether the insurer had offered UM/UIM coverage. See Arizona State Senate, Minutes of Committee on Commerce and Labor 9, 40th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Apr. 22, 1992) [hereinafter Senate Committee Minutes] (noting that insurers are required to make available UM/UIM coverage, but that [t]he law does not specify exactly how this should be made available); Arizona State Senate, Fact Sheet for H.B. 2062, 40th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (May 14, 1992) [hereinafter Fact Sheet] (to similar effect); see also Hayes v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264, 269-70, 872 P.2d 668, 673-74 (1994) (permitting reliance on non-legislators' statements in circumstances providing sufficient guarantees that the statements reflect legislators' views). The remedy chosen was to create a method by which insurers may demonstrate compliance with § 20-259.01. Senate Committee Minutes 13-14 (observing that under the amendment the signing of [the] paper [is] ipso facto the end of the inquiry as to whether [UM/UIM coverage] was meaningfully offered); Fact Sheet (noting that the amendment provides an acceptable procedure for the offering of [UM/UIM] insurance). ¶ 21 After passage of the 1992 amendment, if an insurer provides and the insured signs a DOI-approved UM/UIM selection form, the insurer has satisfied the statutory requirement to make available and by written notice offer UM/UIM coverage. Senate Committee Minutes 9 ([T]he insurance agent can use a form approved by the Director of the Department of Insurance to satisfy [§ 20-259.01].); Fact Sheet (noting that § 20-259.01 is satisfied if the insured signs a form approved by the Department of Insurance stating the amount of coverage desired). ¶ 22 While the 1992 amendment was designed to diminish fact questions, Ballesteros's reading of the statute would replace one fact-intensive inquiry for another. Under Giley, the factual determination concerned whether UM/UIM coverage was sufficiently offered. Ballesteros's approach would require consideration of whether the language proficiency of the insured is such that a Spanish form is required and whether the terms of the offer were understood. Agents in the field, however, are not necessarily equipped to determine a client's language proficiency or degree of understanding. Such a requirement may lead in future cases to questions about an offeree's general understanding of the contract terms regardless of the language in which they are provided in a form. Although § 20-259.01 is remedial in nature, Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 144 Ariz. 291, 294, 697 P.2d 684, 687 (1985), we nonetheless conclude, as we did in Tallent, that imposing a comprehension requirement is both unwarranted by the statute and unwise, 185 Ariz. at 268, 915 P.2d at 667. We further recognize that the legislature passed the 1992 amendments to protect insurers from after-the-fact inquiries regarding the offer of coverage. To read a language requirement into the statute under the guise of effectuating the remedial purpose would thwart this legislative goal. ¶ 23 Finally, Ballesteros's approach offers no principled distinction between Spanish speakers and others whose proficiency in English may be limited. Ballesteros proposes that DOI approval of a Spanish form demonstrates that use of that form for Spanish-speaking customers is mandatory, while the DOI's failure to create forms in other languages means that translation into those languages is not required. We find no such import in the DOI sample Spanish form. The DOI Director provides the Spanish form as a matter of convenience for insurers, rather than as a mandate for use. Brief of the Director of the Arizona Department of Insurance as Amicus Curiae, at 6. ¶ 24 In sum, because American Standard provided Ballesteros a DOI-approved form, it satisfied § 20-259.01.