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 | 472 F.Supp.2d 1272 |
| Parties | FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff, v. Caden JAMESON, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Ronald J. Childress, Elaine R. Dailey, Klecan & Childress, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.
Mark Stout, Stout & Stout, Hobbs, NM, for Defendant.
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 Defendant Caden 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.
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. See id. at # 1. Caden Jameson is a resident of Lovington, New Mexico. See id. 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. See id. 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. See id. 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. See id. 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. See id.
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 Court at 1-2, filed May 23, 2006 (Doc. 15)("Defendant's Memo in Support"). Farm Bureau contends that amount is $125,000, less any liability offsets. See Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 6, filed May 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. See id.
Caden maintains that the amount of UM coverage to which he is entitled is $500,000. See Defendant's Consolidated Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at 2, filed June 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. See id. 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. See id.
Caden bases his contention on the language of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, N.M. Stat. § 66-5-301 and N.M.Code R. § 13.12.3.9, and the New Mexico Supreme Court's articulation of the policy that underlies them. See id. 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. See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Certification to the New Mexico Supreme Court at 2, filed June 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. See Defendant's Memo in Support at 8-9.
Farm Bureau originally moved the Court to declare its and Caden's rights and obligations under Policies I and II. See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment at 1-4, filed October 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. See Defendant's Motion for. Summary Judgment at 2 n. 1, 3 n. 2; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment at 1 n. 1, n. 2, 2 n. 3.
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). See Celotex 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. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)(citing Fed. 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. See Branson 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. See World of Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair, Co., 756 F.2d 1467, 1474 (10th Cir.1985)(citing Fed. 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). See Munoz 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.
In interpreting statutory provisions, a court's fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. C.R. Gurule, Inc.
...Fed.Appx. at 854. In its certification order, the Tenth Circuit noted that the Court had held, in Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jameson, 472 F.Supp.2d 1272 (D.N.M.2006) (Browning, J.), that election to take uninsured motorist coverage in an amount less than the general coverage consti......
-
Ullman v. Safeway Ins. Co.
...Fed.Appx. at 854. In its certification order, the Tenth Circuit noted that the Court had held, in Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jameson, 472 F.Supp.2d 1272 (D.N.M.2006) (Browning, J.), that election to take uninsured motorist coverage in an amount less than the general coverage consti......
-
Rimbert v. Eli Lilly and Co.
...a question to the state supreme court `rests in the sound discretion of the federal court.'"); Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jameson, 472 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1280 (D.N.M.2006)(Browning, J.). Pursuant to N.M.S.A.1978, § 39-7-4, the Supreme Court of New Mexico may answer questions that the federal......
-
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Desert State Life Mgmt.
...Marckstadt v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2010-NMSC-001, ¶ 26, 147 N.M. 678, 228 P.3d at 471. See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Jameson, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1280 (D.N.M. 2006) (Browning, J.)(predicting that the Supreme Court of New Mexico would require a signed, written rejection included in the po......