We blogged the Court of Appeals opinion here.

The Supreme Court vacates it but comes to the same conclusion for basically the same reason: “20-259.01(B) does not require the notice to specify the cost of the UIM coverage.” “Whether an offer of UM/UIM coverage has been made does not depend on the insured’s understanding of the terms being offered, but instead on whether a reasonable person would understand that his or her acceptance would bind the insurer to provide the offered coverage,” citing Ballesteros (2011).

The court says it reviews this because it’s “a recurrent legal question of statewide importance” but doesn’t mention the other case to have raised it, Melendez now being a memorandum opinion. The existence of Melendez is presumably one reason it took this case but perhaps the court also wants to emphasize that, after Ballesteros and Newman, it really, really isn’t going to read requirements into this statute and so people should stop trying to. “We have previously refused to add requirements to this statute and again decline to do so.”

(link to opinion)