THIS OPINION HAS BEEN VACATED

This presents the issue raised in Melendez but this panel comes to the opposite conclusion.

Newman had refused an offer of UIM coverage but argued that the offer was invalid because it didn’t quote a premium. The trial court disagreed and gave Cornerstone summary judgment. Then, in Melendez, this court agreed with the argument. Newman got a different panel, though. Apparently it took a hint from the fact that the Supreme Court had later re-designated Melendez a memorandum (or took some other hint; how information works its way along the judicial grapevine is not for outsiders to know – in fact, you’re not even supposed to know that there is one).  The court concludes that the statute doesn’t require a premium quote with the offer.

Except to say that Newman relied on it the court does not mention Melendez. Whether that is intended as a comment is an exercise for the reader. Melendez is a memo now, so there’s an excuse.

(link to opinion)