Progressive argues that reforming policies to provide UM/UIM coverage equal to the liability limits would undermine freedom of contract. We disagree. As this Court has explained, “although ... public policy generally supports freedom of contract, the necessity of meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements plainly conditions freedom of contract” in the context of UM/UIM insurance. Marckstadt, 2010-NMSC-001, ¶ 18, 147 N.M. 678, 228 P.3d 462 (citation omitted). We seek an approach to UM/UIM coverage that “best balances the interests in permitting private contractual relations between the parties, and honoring the broad intent of the [UM/UIM] statute.” Montano v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2004-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 18-19, 135 N.M. 681, 92 P.3d 1255 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). {24} In Montano, this Court struck that
holding that an insurance company should obtain written rejections of stacking in order to limit its liability based on an antistacking provision holding that a closing protection letter offering to indemnify a mortgage company was not an insurance contract where although issued by an insurance company there was no distribution of the risk holding that an insurance company may limit coverage only if the limitation does not contravene public policy holding that when an insurance policy contains an antistacking clause the insurance company must obtain a written rejection of um coverage for each additional vehicle covered by a policy in order to clarify the insureds expectations and to make certain that the insured gets only what he or she has paid for holding that notice and a hearing were required before the commissioner of insurance could require an insurance company to change its definition of at fault in order to secure approval of an increase in insurance rates