CITATION: Baldassano v. High Point, 396 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 2007), Parker

DIGEST: Where plaintiff signed a Coverage Selection Form on which the insurer’s agent had checked the amounts of coverage, the insurer is immune from liability from plaintiff’s claim that he suffered damages because the agent failed to advise him that higher UIM limits were available.

CASE NOTE: Plaintiff, Vincent Baldassano, was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in a one-car accident. He settled his liability claim against the tortfeasor for the policy limit of $100,000.

Baldassano was insured by High Point with UIM limits of $100/300,000. He filed a claim for UIM benefits; however, High Point denied the claim because the tortfeasor was not underinsured--the tortfeasor's liability limit was equal to, not less than, the plaintiff's UIM limit.

Baldassano filed suit against High Point on the grounds that the agent failed to advise him that higher limits of UIM coverage were available; that he relied upon the advice of the agent; and that he would have purchased higher limits of UIM coverage if he had been so advised.

The plaintiff acknowledged that he received a Coverage Selection Form in 1998 with an Insured's Statement that "I acknowledge that the limits available for Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Coverage have been explained to me." Nonetheless, he maintained that the agent checked the boxes and he never read the form because he relied upon the agent.

The defendant emphasized that Baldassano renewed his policy 12 times between 1998 and 2004 and that he never made any inquiries about the type or amount of coverage, even though he spoke to the agent several times to change cars. In addition, the agent testified that he sent a Coverage Selection Form and a Buyer's Guide with each renewal. Baldassano remembered the renewal packages but could not recall what documents were included.

The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the completion and execution of the Coverage Selection Form by the insured was sufficient to immunize the carrier from any liability, even if the agent completed the form, failed to give the insured a Buyer's Guide or failed to explain the availability of additional coverage.

The Appellate Division affirmed. At the outset, the court recognized that an insurer has a statutory immunity from an action "arising from an insured's election of motor vehicle insurance coverage limits" as long as the insurer complies with three statutory requirements: (1) coverage limits that were at least the minimum required by law; (2) conduct that was not willful, wanton or grossly negligent; and (3) providing the named insured with a Buyer's Guide and Coverage Selection Form. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(b). In addition, the insured must have indicated the options elected on the Coverage Selection Form and return the signed form to the carrier. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-23(a).

Under the facts of this case, the court concluded that "plaintiff's signing the form with the coverage limits selected by the agent and his returning the form to the agent constituted completion and execution of the coverage selection form." Thus, the carrier would be protected by the statute and would be immune from liability.

Comment: The Insurance Statutes require an insurer to offer and insured the option to purchase uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage with limits of $250/500,000 or $500,000 single limit (not to exceed the liability limits). N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(b).  The key factor in this case was the completion of the Coverage Selection Form by the named insured and the multiple renewals without inquiry. The result of the case would probably have been different if the named insured had not executed a Coverage Selection Form or had asked the agent for the best available coverage.

LINK: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a2183-06.opn.html