Kileen v. Didio: The New Mexico Supreme Court Mandates a Per-Vehicle Offer of UM/UIM Coverage

Introduction

Kileen v. Didio, Opinion No. 2 (June 30 2025), marks the latest and most consequential chapter in New Mexico’s long-running jurisprudence on uninsured/under-insured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance under NMSA 1978, § 66-5-301.

The petitioner, Jared Kileen, was injured in an automobile accident and sought UIM benefits from Progressive Direct Insurance Company (“Progressive”) under a policy purchased for three vehicles by his father. The policy contained a per-policy rejection of UM/UIM coverage. After Progressive denied the claim, litigation ensued, culminating in the Supreme Court’s review of one sharply focused question: Must insurers in New Mexico offer UM/UIM coverage on a per-vehicle basis, with corresponding premium disclosure, rather than on an all-or-nothing per-policy basis?

Summary of the Judgment

Holding: Yes. Insurers must offer UM/UIM coverage separately for each vehicle insured under a multi-vehicle policy and must disclose the premium for each election. An all-or-nothing offer is invalid.
Effect: Any rejection of UM/UIM coverage procured without a valid per-vehicle offer is void. The decision applies with selective prospectivity—it governs the parties in Kileen and all policies issued or renewed after the decision date.
Result for the parties: Progressive’s summary judgment is reversed; Kileen’s rejection was not “knowing and intelligent,” and the case is remanded.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and their Influence

Montaño v. Allstate (2004) – First required written rejection of stacking and mandated disclosure of additional premiums. Although Montaño did not impose a per-vehicle rule, its policy rationale (avoiding “take-it-or-leave-it” situations that price consumers out of coverage) is the backbone of Kileen.
Jordan v. Allstate (2010) – Required written rejection to be part of the policy and full premium disclosure for each UM/UIM limit. Kileen extends Jordan by analogizing “coverage limits” to “coverage distribution per vehicle.”
Marckstadt v. Lockheed Martin (2010) – Emphasised “knowing and intelligent” rejection. Provides the standard used to void Kileen’s rejection.
Weed Warrior (2010) – Reaffirmed the remedial purpose of § 66-5-301 and requirement to offer coverage equal to liability limits. Serves as textual backdrop.
Ullman v. Safeway (2023) – Recently required an explanation of stacking; noted but did not decide the per-vehicle issue, leaving the door open that Kileen now closes.
Lueras v. GEICO (2018, aff’d/rev’d in part 2023) – Approved per-policy offers at the Court of Appeals. Kileen overrules that aspect.
Older cases (Lopez, Vigil, Rodriguez) – Recited the principle that UM/UIM follows the insured, not the vehicle; Kileen clarifies this remains intact.

B. Legal Reasoning

“By offering such coverage on a per-vehicle basis, consumers will have the option of purchasing the coverage they can afford rather than purchasing UM/UIM coverage on all vehicles or rejecting coverage entirely.” —Vargas, J.

The Court undertakes a three-step reasoning path:

Statutory Silence. Section 66-5-301 neither prescribes nor prohibits per-vehicle offers. The implementing regulation (13.12.3 NMAC) is likewise silent.
Purposive Construction. Consistent with decades of precedent, the statute is remedial and must be liberally construed to encourage the purchase of UM/UIM coverage. Per-policy “take-it-or-leave-it” offers frustrate that aim.
Policy Harmonisation. Borrowing Montaño’s and Jordan’s rationale, the Court balances freedom of contract against consumer protection, concluding that informed choice requires granular, vehicle-by-vehicle options.

The Court rejects insurer concerns about “infinite permutations,” noting that the rule only compels one additional permutation: individual vehicle elections, plus any broader per-policy package the insurer wishes to sell.

C. Impact

Insurance Practice. Every insurer writing auto policies in New Mexico must:
- Create new election forms listing each vehicle separately.
- Quote and display separate UM/UIM premiums per vehicle.
- Retain signed forms as part of the policy packet (Jordan compliance).
Pending & Future Litigation. Expectations of a new surge of coverage suits challenging past per-policy rejections are tempered by selective prospectivity—only the litigants in Kileen and policies issued/renewed after 30 June 2025 are affected.
Regulatory Action. The Office of Superintendent of Insurance will likely revise 13.12.3 NMAC to codify the per-vehicle requirement, standardise forms, and give implementation deadlines.
Consumer Behavior. Lower-income multi-car households now have realistic, affordable paths to partial UM/UIM coverage rather than facing an all-or-nothing dilemma.
Policy Drafting Nationwide. While unique to New Mexico, Kileen may influence other jurisdictions interpreting similarly worded statutes, especially states with strong remedial UM/UIM policies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

UM/UIM Coverage: Insurance that pays an insured for injuries when the at-fault driver has no insurance (uninsured) or not enough insurance (under-insured).
Stacking: The ability to add together UM/UIM limits from multiple vehicles or policies to increase available benefits.
Per-Policy vs. Per-Vehicle Offer: Per-Policy: One election covers all vehicles—accept for every car or reject for every car.
Per-Vehicle: Separate election for each listed vehicle—insured may buy coverage on some vehicles and decline on others.
Selective Prospectivity: A rule applies (1) to the litigants before the court and (2) to future conduct after the decision date; it does not reopen closed cases or past conduct.
“Coverage follows the insured”: UM/UIM pays benefits based on the injured person’s status as a named or covered insured, regardless of which car he or she occupies—unless coverage was expressly rejected for the situation.

Conclusion

Kileen v. Didio cements a pivotal enlargement of consumer rights under New Mexico’s UM/UIM framework. By obligating insurers to make a discrete, premium-specific offer for each vehicle, the Supreme Court has:

Extended the Montaño/Jordan lineage of “meaningful choice” requirements;
Resolved longstanding uncertainty flagged but unanswered in Ullman;
Preserved the doctrinal core that UM/UIM follows the insured while aligning contractual expectations with actual premium payments; and
Balanced remedial statutory purpose against insurer reliance by applying the rule prospectively, with justice in the instant case.

For practitioners, the message is clear: review forms, update procedures, and advise clients—insurers and insureds alike—of the now-mandatory per-vehicle UM/UIM offer. For policymakers, the decision signals judicial willingness to fill statutory gaps when consumer protection is at stake, all while inviting legislative refinement.

New Mexico now stands as the first jurisdiction to make a per-vehicle UM/UIM offer a constitutional predicate to a valid rejection—an evolution likely to reverberate well beyond the state’s borders.