Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jameson

• Decision Date: 31 October 2006
• Docket Number: No. CV 05-1080 JB/WPL.,CV 05-1080 JB/WPL.
• Citation: Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jameson, 472 F.Supp.2d 1272 (D. N.M. 2006)
• Parties: FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff, v. Caden JAMESON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

472 F.Supp.2d 1272

FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff, v.Caden JAMESON, Defendant.

No. CV 05-1080 JB/WPL.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

October 31, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ronald J. Childress, Elaine R. Dailey, Klecan & Childress, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.

Mark Stout, Stout & Stout, Hobbs, NM, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BROWNING, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i)the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Certification to the New Mexico Supreme Court, filed May 23, 2006(Doc. 14)("Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment"); and (ii)the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 30, 2006(Doc. 16).As the parties agree that the material facts in this case are not in dispute, the Court must decide how the New Mexico Supreme Court, if presented with these issues, would decide the following issues: (i) whether New Mexico law required the Plaintiff, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company("Farm Bureau"), to obtain a signed written rejection of uninsured/under-insured motorist ("UM") coverage at levels equal to liability levels from the DefendantCaden Jameson's parents; and (ii) whether, if such was required, New Mexico law dictates that the policy in question be reformed to reflect UM coverage limits equal to the liability limits contained within that policy.The Court concludes: (i) that New Mexico law requires insurers to offer UM coverage at a level not less than that statutorily required and up to the level of liability coverage contained within a policy; (ii) that, if the insured rejects UM coverage in an amount equal to liability coverage, the insurer is required to obtain a signed, written rejection and include it within the policy in some manner; and (iii) that an insurer's failure to do so requires the Court to read into a policy UM coverage equal to liability coverage.The Court will therefore grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.The Court will also declare: (i) that Caden does not claim any medical coverage under Policy I, the Jamesons' policy; (ii) that the parties have reached settlement under Policy II, the policy held by the owner of the vehicle in which Caden was injured, and that there are no outstanding issues involving that policy; and (iii) that the parties agree that Farm Bureau will be entitled to offsets with respect to liability payments made to or on behalf of Caden.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The parties do not dispute the facts.See Initial Pre-Trial Report, filed January 17, 2006(Doc. 12)("IPTR").Farm Bureau is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in West Des Moines, Iowa.Seeid. at # 1.Caden Jameson is a resident of Lovington, New Mexico.Seeid. at # 2.Farm Bureau issued a policy of automobile insurance in New Mexico to Caden's parents, Gary and Glenna Jameson("Jamesons"), policy number 14351301, with effective dates of May 14, 2004 to May 14, 2005.Seeid. at # 3.

Caden was a resident relative under the policy at all material times; Caden is a Class I insured under the policy and is entitled to stack the coverages it contains.Seeid. at # 3 & # 4.The Jamesons never signed forms that specifically contained a written rejection of UM coverage or a written rejection of the stacking of UM coverage, but did sign an application that listed the following coverage limits, which subsequently appeared on the their declarations page: liability limits at $100,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence; UM limits at $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurrence; and medical payments limits at $5,000 per person/$25,000 per occurrence.Seeid. at # 5 & # 6.The policy at issue essentially renewed automobile coverages that began November 21, 1996 and that were renewed each year up to the May 14, 2004 renewal.See Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 30, 2006(Doc. 18), Application for Insurance, for coverage to be effective November 20, 1996, Exhibit A ("Application").

On or about November 28, 2004, Caden was a passenger in a vehicle, not covered under the Jameson's policy, that was involved in a single-car accident.See IPTR at # 11.Caden sustained bodily injury.Seeid.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In his motion for summary judgment, Caden asks the Court to decide the amount of UM coverage to which he is entitled under his parents' policy.See Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Certification to the New Mexico Supreme Courtat 1-2, filedMay 23, 2006(Doc. 15)("Defendant's Memo in Support").Farm Bureau contends that amount is $125,000, less any liability offsets.SeeMemorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgmentat 6, filedMay 30, 2006(Doc. 17)("Plaintiff's Memo in Support").Farm Bureau arrives at the amount by stacking the stated $25,000 UM per person limits for each of the five vehicles covered under the Jamesons' policy.Seeid.

Caden maintains that the amount of UM coverage to which he is entitled is $500,000.SeeDefendant's Consolidated Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgmentat 2, filedJune 23, 2006(Doc. 20)("Defendant's Consolidated Response").He arrives at that amount by stacking the stated liability limits for each of the vehicles covered under his parents' policy.Seeid. at 2-3.Caden contends that UM coverage at the liability limits must be read into the policy because his parents never signed a written rejection of UM coverage equal to the liability limits.Seeid.

Caden bases his contention on the language of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, N.M. Stat. § 66-5-301andN.M.Code R. § 13.12.3.9, and the New Mexico Supreme Court's articulation of the policy that underlies them.Seeid.Farm Bureau argues, in response, that it had no obligation to obtain a specific written rejection of UM coverage equal to liability limits and attach it to the policy, because there was not and is not an express statutory or administrative requirement for such a document where, as here, the insureds elect to purchase UM coverage at the minimum amount the law mandates, and that, even if there was or is such a requirement, the Jamesons' policy applications and declarations page showing UM coverage at the minimum levels would constitute a sufficient written rejection of higher limits.SeePlaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Certification to the New Mexico Supreme Courtat 2, filedJune 12, 2006(Doc. 19)("Plaintiff s Response").Caden also moves the Court, if it finds the New Mexico law on the matter to be unclear, to certify the interpretation of N.M. Stat § 66-5-301 to the New Mexico Supreme Court.SeeDefendant's Memo in Supportat 8-9.

Farm Bureau originally moved the Court to declare its and Caden's rights and obligations under Policies I and II.SeeComplaint for Declaratory Judgmentat 1-4, filedOctober 12, 2005(Doc. 1).At the present time, however, the Court need only determine at what limits UM coverage is due under the policy, because: (i) Caden does not claim any medical coverage under Policy I; (ii)the parties have reached settlement under Policy II and there are no outstanding issues involving that policy; and (iii)the parties agree that Farm Bureau will be entitled to offsets with respect to liability payments made to or on behalf of Caden.SeeDefendant's Motion for. Summary Judgmentat 2 n. 1, 3 n. 2;Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgmentat 1 n. 1, n. 2, 2 n. 3.

LAW REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment shall be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, togther with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).SeeCelotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).The opposing party may not rest upon mere allegations and denials in the pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.SeeAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986)(citingFed. R.Civ.P. 56(e)).An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is significantly probative or more than merely colorable such that a jury could reasonably return a verdict for the non-moving party.Id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Mere assertions or conjecture as to factual disputes are not enough to survive summary judgment.SeeBranson v. Price River Coal Co.,853 F.2d 768, 771-72(10th Cir.1988).The court may only consider admissible evidence when ruling on a motion for summary judgment.SeeWorld of Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair, Co.,756 F.2d 1467, 1474(10th Cir.1985)(citingFed. R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

If a defendant seeks summary judgment, it has an "initial burden to show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case."Thomas v. IBM,48 F.3d 478, 484(10th Cir.1995).SeeMunoz v. St. Mary-Corwin Hosp.,221 F.3d 1160, 1164(10th Cir.2000).Upon meeting that burden, the plaintiff must "identify specific facts that show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact."Id."The party opposing the motion must present sufficient evidence in specific, factual form for a jury to return a verdict in that party's favor."Id.The non-moving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

RELEVANT PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION UNDER NEW MEXICO LAW

In interpreting statutory provisions, a court's fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the...