Opinion ID: 169669
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appropriateness of Reformation

Text: Ms. Reid's final challenge to the district court's order concerns its determination that reformation of her insurance policy would be unconscionable in light of her explicit waiver of the work loss benefit. See Aplt.App. at 919 (stating that [i]n practical terms, [Ms. Reid] is seeking a judgment requiring [GEICO] to pay unlimited PIP benefits to her after she elected to keep her premiums at the lowest level by disclaiming that she was employed.). Ms. Reid contends that this statement reveals the district court's improper assumption that she would not have purchased enhanced PIP coverage regardless of the adequacy of the offer. This argument, however, ignores the remainder of the district court's analysis and exaggerates the importance it placed on Ms. Reid's waiver of the work loss benefit. It is clear from the court's opinion that it rejected Ms. Reid's claim for reformation because it concluded that GEICO had made an adequate offer of enhanced PIP coverage, which Ms. Reid rejected. Neither its analysis nor its conclusion was erroneous. Generally, the purpose of reformation of an insurance contract is to make the policy express the true intent of the parties. Thompson v. Budget Rent-A-Car, 940 P.2d 987, 990 (Colo.Ct.App.1996). Reformation is also required, however, when an offer of coverage fails to meet statutory requirements. Under those circumstances, additional coverage in conformity with the required offer is incorporated into the agreement by operation of law. Id. Ms. Reid correctly observes that it is improper for a district court to speculate as to whether an insured would have purchased enhanced PIP coverage when such coverage was never offered. See id. (affirming reformation of policy and holding that driver's after-the-fact statement that he would have refused the additional coverage if it had been offered [did] not require a different result.). But in her case, enhanced PIP coverage was offered and we have already upheld the sufficiency of the offer under the No-Fault Act. Under these circumstances, reformation is not available. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.