Recording A Telephone Conversation Offering Underinsured Motorist Coverage Does Not Satisfy “In Writing” Offer Requirement

Progressive Casualty Inc. Co. v. Ruiz
Ct. Appeals, Div. One, May 20, 2010

Authored by the JSH Appellate Team

Thompson called Progressive’s 1-800 number to purchase a $1 million auto insurance policy for his company, Giant Electric Corporation. During the conversation, Progressive’s agent discussed uninsured/ underinsured (UM/UIM) coverage with Thompson, and Thompson elected to buy $100,000 of UM/UIM – less than the $1 million liability limits he bought. Progressive electronically recorded the conversation.

Later, a passenger in a Giant utility van was killed in an accident caused by an uninsured motorist. Progressive filed a dec action against the deceased’s estate, Giant, and the Giant utility van driver, arguing that the UM/UIM limits were $100,000 per claim, $300,000 aggregate. Progressive and the estate filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether Progressive provided the statutorily-required “written offer” of UM/UIM coverage. If it did not, $1,000,000 of UIM coverage would be imputed into the policy as a matter of law. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the estate.

The court of appeals affirmed. The plain meaning of the words “written notice” in A.R.S. § 20-259.01(B) require that the offer be communicated in writing. A written recordation of an oral notice is not an offer “in writing.” Thus, $1 million of UIM coverage was imputed into the policy.