Can insurance companies prove UIM coverage waivers without the original signed form? Randall v. Progressive Classic Insurance Company Explained

In Randall v. Progressive Classic Insurance Company, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether insurance companies must produce original signed acknowledgment forms to prove an insured rejected underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, or whether extrinsic evidence can suffice when the original documents are destroyed.

Background and Facts
Rex Randall obtained automobile insurance from Progressive in 2005 and was later injured in a collision. After settling with the at-fault driver’s insurer for the policy limit of $25,000, Randall sought UIM benefits from Progressive. Progressive claimed Randall had rejected UIM coverage when he purchased his policy, but could not produce the signed acknowledgment form because the insurance brokerage had destroyed it three years later pursuant to its document retention policy. Progressive instead provided declaration sheets showing Randall was never charged for UIM coverage, affidavits from the insurance agent describing standard practices, and an unsigned sample of the acknowledgment form Randall would have signed.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Utah Code section 31A-22-305.3(3)(a) requires insurance companies to produce the actual signed acknowledgment form rejecting UIM coverage, or whether extrinsic evidence can establish such rejection when the original document is destroyed in good faith.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Progressive. The court applied Rule 1004 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, which allows other evidence of a document’s contents when originals are lost or destroyed unless done in bad faith. The court rejected Randall’s argument for a “bright line rule” requiring production of the actual signed form, noting the statute is silent on whether extrinsic evidence can prove rejection. The court presumed the legislature was aware of Rule 1004 when enacting the UIM statute and would have drafted around it if that was the intent.

Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that insurance companies can defend UIM claims by presenting circumstantial evidence of coverage rejection even without the original acknowledgment form. Practitioners challenging UIM denials should focus on whether document destruction was done in bad faith and carefully scrutinize the sufficiency of the extrinsic evidence offered. The decision reinforces that while UIM coverage is important public policy, it does not override established evidentiary rules.