" Id. at 1223.Zurich relies upon Curry v. Great Northwest Ins. Co., 320 P.3d 482 (N.M.Ct.App.2013) as support for its argument that the information it provided to SAIA meets the premium disclosure requirement. According to Zurich, New Mexico law does not prescribe any one particular way that information about UM/UIM coverage must be provided to an insured, and recognizes that such information could be provided through an insurer's website or from an insurance agent.
In requiring the insurer to offer their insured "UM[ ] coverage in a meaningful way," the insurer must guarantee that the insured's decision is "knowing and intelligent." Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co. , 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 14, 320 P.3d 482. To facilitate the insured's "informed decision about the level of UM[ ] coverage he or she wants to purchase," the insurer must "provid[e] the insured with a menu of coverage options and corresponding premium costs."
The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that Jordan does not require that the written waiver itself must contain the "menu" of coverage options. Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-031, ¶¶ 12-24, 320 P.3d 482, 485-88. The Court concludes that the New Mexico Supreme Court would
Whether Defendant's language in the notices constitutes a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing sufficient to show an "injury" is a common question of law sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) for the subclasses as they are currently crafted. Defendant Sentry also raises an argument under Curry v. Great Northwest Insurance Co., 320 P.3d 482 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013), alleging that Plaintiffs' claim for Subclass 2 fails because they have no right to a "better" notice than the one they received. (Doc. 159, at 17-18.)
First, Defendants contend that the New Mexico Court of Appeals' decision in Curry v. Great Northwest Ins. Co., destroys the foundation of Plaintiffs' class claims. See 320 P.3d 482, (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2013) cert. denied No. 34,451 (Mar. 7, 2014). Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' class claims for injunctive and declaratory relief fail as a matter of law.
But Plaintiffs did not preserve any issue relating to the recording system or notice by raising the issue in the district court, see Benz, 2013-NMCA-111, ¶ 24, and Plaintiffs have not provided authority that the misspelled name in the September Judgment would give rise to recording or notice problems. See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 ("Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists."). {¶10} The arguments presented by Plaintiffs regarding the statutes do not convince us that the misspellings here resulted in an unenforceable order.
The Department does not cite, and we have not found, any similar provision allowing for—let alone mandating—a protest and a claim for refund raising common issues to be combined and heard together. See Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock , 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70, 309 P.3d 53 (requiring "that the parties adequately brief all appellate issues to include an argument, the standard of review, and citations to authorities for each issue presented"); cf.Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co. , 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 ("Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists."). We therefore presume the Legislature intended to include none.
"Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists." Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co. , 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482. Rather, Berger Briggs points only to Quality Chiropractic , which upheld the disallowance of an assignment of a chiropractic clinic patient's personal injury claims arising from a car accident given our refusal to "abrogate the common law rule prohibiting the assignment of personal injury claims[.]"
{16} As an initial matter, Premier cites no cases, nor have we found any, in which a property owner has a right to certain static market conditions. See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co. , 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 ("Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists."). And to the contrary, there are New Mexico cases suggesting the opposite.
For the proposition that "an implied consent defense ... exists at law only within the context of a fiduciary relationship," Plaintiff cites no supporting authority. See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co. , 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 ("Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists."). In contrast, as argued by Beesley and confirmed by our review of New Mexico authority, our courts have imposed no such limit on the defense of consent.