Giley v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co
In Giley v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 168 Ariz. 306, 812 P.2d 1124 (App. 1991), the insurance agent had described to Giley uninsured motorist coverage but not underinsured coverage. Id. at 306, 812 P.2d at 1124.
The agent then offered Giley a form and told her to sign it if she "wanted coverage." Unbeknownst to Giley, the form included a written offer of underinsured coverage, and the agent retained the form after Giley signed it, apparently indicating she had declined UIM coverage. Id.
When she later sued the insurer for its failure to provide notice of UIM coverage, the trial court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute required only a written offer of coverage, which she had received, and that no action had been taken to prevent her from reading the form she had been given. Id.
On appeal, this court reversed, concluding 20-259.01 "requires that the insurer offer such coverage in a way reasonably calculated to bring to the insured's attention that which is being offered." Id.
The Court thus found questions of fact remained whether the agent's behavior constituted "conduct likely to prevent Ms. Giley from reading the form" and that a reasonable trier of fact therefore could conclude the agent had failed appropriately to make the offer of UIM coverage available. Id. at 306-07, 812 P.2d at 1124-25.