AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

Employees injured in automobile accidents while on the job sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits under their employers' automobile liability insurance policies. The employers and insurers argued that UM/UIM coverage had been rejected, while the employees contended that the rejection was invalid because it did not comply with New Mexico law requiring a written rejection to be attached to the policy (paras 1, 5-7, 10-12).

Procedural History

• District Court: Granted summary judgment in favor of the employers and insurers, finding that the rejection of UM/UIM coverage was valid (para 8).
• Court of Appeals (Marckstadt v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2008-NMCA-138): Affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the unsigned endorsement satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements (para 8).
• District Court (Federated Service Insurance Co. v. Martinez): Granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the rejection of UM/UIM coverage was valid despite the absence of a written rejection attached to the policy (para 12).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Employees): Argued that the rejection of UM/UIM coverage was invalid because it was not in writing, signed, or attached to the policy as required by New Mexico law (paras 1, 12).
• Appellees (Employers and Insurers): Contended that the employers intended to reject UM/UIM coverage, and the endorsements in the policies evidenced this intent, satisfying the statutory and regulatory requirements (paras 1, 12).

Legal Issues

• Must the rejection of UM/UIM coverage under New Mexico law be in writing, signed by the insured, and attached to the policy? (paras 9, 12).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the rejection of UM/UIM coverage must be in writing but does not need to be signed or attached to the policy. The case was remanded to determine whether a written rejection was obtained (paras 4, 26, 32).

Reasons

Majority Opinion (Per Chávez CJ., Serna, Maes, and Daniels JJ. concurring):

• Written Rejection Requirement: The Court interpreted Section 66-5-301 and 13.12.3.9 NMAC to require a written rejection of UM/UIM coverage. This ensures that the insured knowingly and intelligently rejects coverage and provides clear evidence of the rejection (paras 15-23).
• No Signature Requirement: The Court found no statutory or regulatory requirement for the rejection to be signed. While a signature might serve evidentiary and cautionary purposes, it is not mandated by the law (paras 24).
• Attachment Not Required: The Court held that the written rejection itself does not need to be attached to the policy, as long as some evidence of the rejection is endorsed, attached, stamped, or otherwise made part of the policy (paras 25-26).
• Application to the Case: The Court rejected arguments for exceptions based on the employers' sophistication or the parties' intent, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements to protect third-party beneficiaries and ensure uniformity (paras 27-30).
• Retroactive Application: The Court declined to limit its holding to prospective application, reasoning that the decision was foreseeable and consistent with the statutory purpose of expanding UM/UIM coverage (paras 31).

Dissenting Opinion (Bosson J.):

• Justice Bosson disagreed with the majority's requirement for a separate written rejection preceding the policy. He argued that the regulation's purpose is to ensure that the rejection is part of the policy, which was satisfied in these cases. He emphasized the importance of respecting the insureds' freedom to contract and their clear intent to reject UM/UIM coverage (paras 34-50).