Lueras v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. A-1-CA-35661 (Consolidated),NO. A-1-CA-34961,A-1-CA-34961,A-1-CA-35661 (Consolidated) |
| Citation | 424 P.3d 665 |
| Parties | Angela LUERAS and Joe Lueras, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Angela Lueras and Joe Lueras, as parents and guardians of A. Lueras, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Maria Rodriguez, Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona a/k/a Farmers Insurance Group a/k/a Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendants, And David Van Epps, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEICO Indemnity Company Defendant-Appellee, and Cesar Montaño, Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Law Offices of Geoffrey R. Romero, Geoffrey R. Romero, Albuquerque, NM, O'Connell Law LLC, Erin B. O'Connell, Albuquerque, NM, Widner Law Firm LLC, Susan H. Widner, Albuquerque, NM, for Lueras Appellants.
Anthony G. Lopez, Attorney at Law, Anthony G. Lopez, Taos, NM, for Van Epps Appellant.
Chapman and Priest, PC, Stephen M. Simone, Albuquerque, NM, Perry Law, P.C., Meloney Perry, Stacy Thompson, Dallas, TX, for GEICO Appellees.
{1} Plaintiffs, Angela and Joe Lueras, and David Van Epps, filed two separate lawsuits against GEICO General Insurance Company and GEICO Indemnity Company1 , respectively, in response to GEICO's refusal to pay uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) benefits to them. GEICO declined to pay because Plaintiffs had rejected UM/UIM coverage. The district courts granted summary judgment to GEICO in both cases. These appeals raise substantially similar issues, and for that reason we exercise our discretion to consolidate them for decision. See Rule 12-317(B) NMRA.
{2} On appeal, Plaintiffs make the following claims:
{3} We affirm. Claims 1 and 2 are identical to claims that we recently considered and rejected in Ullman v. Safeway Insurance Co. , 2017-NMCA-071, 404 P.3d 434, cert. granted , 2017-NMCERT-–––– (A-1-CA-36580 Aug. 24, 2017). Claim 3 is also foreclosed by the rationale in Ullman . We reject Claim 4 because New Mexico law does not preclude an insurer from requiring an insured to choose the same UM/UIM coverage (or to reject UM/UIM coverage entirely) for all vehicles covered by a single policy. Claim 5 is foreclosed by our decision in Vigil v. Rio Grande Insurance of Santa Fe , 1997-NMCA-124, ¶¶ 14-17, 124 N.M. 324, 950 P.2d 297, which has not been modified by any later decisions by our Supreme Court. Finally, we reject Claim 6 because GEICO was required by law to send the UM/UIM coverage form to Mrs. Van Epps, and nothing in it discouraged her from selecting UM/UIM coverage.
{4} The Luerases bought an automobile insurance policy for their three vehicles from GEICO in 2009. The policy had liability limits of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence. GEICO presented the Luerases with a form on which they could select or reject UM/UIM coverage. The form did not explain that the UM/UIM coverages for each vehicle would be stacked. The form provided the Luerases with the option of selecting the same UM/UIM coverage for all three vehicles, or rejecting UM/UIM coverage entirely. The Luerases rejected UM/UIM coverage. Later, the Luerases added a fourth vehicle to their policy, and GEICO again sent the Luerases a form on which to select or reject UM/UIM coverage. The Luerases did not sign or return the form to GEICO.
{5} In 2011, Plaintiff Angela Lueras was the driver of, and her daughter a passenger in, a vehicle that was involved in a crash with Defendant Maria Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez's automobile insurance coverage was not sufficient to fully compensate the Luerases for the injuries they suffered as a result of the crash. The Luerases asked GEICO to provide UIM benefits, but GEICO denied their claim because they had rejected UM/UIM coverage. The Luerases then sued GEICO and Ms. Rodriguez in the Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo County, arguing that their rejection of UM/UIM coverage was invalid on several grounds. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in GEICO's favor and denied the Luerases' cross-motion for summary judgment. The Luerases timely appealed.
{6} Mr. Van Epps' wife, Wendy Van Epps, purchased a GEICO insurance policy in 2010 on four vehicles that the couple owned. The policy had liability limits of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence. Mrs. Van Epps selected UM/UIM coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence, which was less than the liability limits. Two days later, GEICO sent Mrs. Van Epps a form letter asking her to select or reject UM/UIM coverage. According to the menu of options on the form, if Mrs. Van Epps wanted to select UM/UIM coverage, she had to purchase the same level of coverage on all four vehicles, and if she wanted to reject UM/UIM coverage, she had to reject it on all four vehicles. She could not select different UM/UIM coverage limits for each vehicle, or select UM/UIM coverage on some vehicles and reject it on others. The form also did not inform Ms. Van Epps that the UM/UIM policies would be stacked in the event of an accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist. Mrs. Van Epps rejected UM/UIM coverage on all four vehicles.
{7} While working as a security officer at a local restaurant in 2012, Mr. Van Epps was threatened by Defendant Cesar Montaño, who was attempting to patronize the restaurant. When Mr. Montaño left in his car, he drove it towards Mr. Van Epps, hitting him and knocking him to the ground. Mr. Montaño then backed up his car and ran over Mr. Van Epps' leg. Mr. Van Epps sustained permanent injuries.
{8} Mr. Montaño also had a GEICO insurance policy, but it provided only $25,000 in coverage, which was insufficient to cover Mr. Van Epps' injuries. Mr. Van Epps sought UIM benefits under his own policy. GEICO refused to pay based on Mrs. Van Epps' rejection of UM/UIM coverage. Mr. Van Epps then sued GEICO and Mr. Montaño in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Taos County, New Mexico, raising arguments similar to those made by the Luerases. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to GEICO, and denied Mr. Van Epps' cross-motion for summary judgment. Mr. Van Epps timely appealed.
I. Standard of Review
{9} Each claim in this case involves the interpretation of insurance policy language, and we therefore apply de novo review. See Rummel v. Lexington Ins. Co. , 1997-NMSC-041, ¶ 60, 123 N.M. 752, 945 P.2d 970 (). We also apply de novo review to district court orders granting summary judgment. See FarmingtonPolice Officers Ass'n Commc'n Workers of America Local 7911 v. City of Farmington , 2006-NMCA-077, ¶ 13, 139 N.M. 750, 137 P.3d 1204 ().
II. Plaintiffs' Claim That the Policies and Rejection Forms Should Have Explained That Their UM/UIM Benefits Would Be Stacked, Their Claim That the Rejection Form Was Ambiguous Because It Purported to Prohibit Stacking, and the Luerases' Claim That the Declaration Page Misrepresents the Amount of UM/UIM Coverage Are Controlled by Our Decision in Ullman
{10} In Jordan v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 2010-NMSC-051, ¶ 22, 149 N.M. 162, 245 P.3d 1214, our Supreme Court stated that to obtain a valid rejection of UM/UIM coverage, an insurer must "(1) offer the insured UM/UIM coverage equal to his or her liability limits, (2) inform the insured about the premium costs corresponding to the available levels of coverage, (3) obtain a written rejection of UM/UIM coverage equal to the liability limits, and (4) incorporate that rejection into the policy in a way that affords the insured a fair opportunity to reconsider the decision to reject[.]" Plaintiffs argue that GEICO's insurance policy and its UM/UIM rejection form violated requirements (2) and (3) of Jordan because they did not explain that UM/UIM benefits would be stacked in the event of a collision with an uninsured or underinsured motorist, thus misrepresenting the amount of UM/UIM coverage that was actually available to them. See Black's Law Dictionary 1623 (10th ed. 2014) (defining "stacking" as "[t]he process of obtaining benefits from a second policy on the same claim when recovery from the first policy alone would be inadequate"). Plaintiffs also argue that GEICO's insurance policy was ambiguous and misleading because it contained language that purported to prohibit stacking, although the anti-stacking provision was invalid under New Mexico law.
{11} We recently considered, and rejected, identical claims in Ullman . 2017-NMCA-071, ¶¶ 39-52, 404 P.3d 434. That decision is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawley v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
...Mexico's insurance case law. This view was reinforced by the New Mexico Court of Appeal's recent decision in Lueras v. GEICO General Insurance Company, 2018-NMCA-051, 424 P.3d 665, cert. granted (Aug. 16, 2018). There, the plaintiffs argued, like Hawley, that GEICO's "all-or-nothing" requir......
-
Hawley v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
...at 446-47. It generally held "an insurer has no duty to offer or explain stacking." Id. at 440. Finally, in Lueras v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 424 P.3d 665 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018), cert. granted, Nos. S-1-SC-37135, S-1-SC-37137 (N.M. Aug. 16, 2018), the New Mexico Court of Appeals addresse......
-
Kileen v. Didio
...that this Court has considered this same "all or nothing" argument in Lueras v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 2018-NMCA-051, ¶¶ 4, 13-17, 424 P.3d 665, where we held that this offer coverage does not violate New Mexico law. [MIO 8] Nevertheless, Plaintiff continues to argue that Lueras was w......