stamped or otherwise made a part of the policy.” (Emphasis added.) The insurance policy delivered to the insureds needed to expressly state that UM/ UIM coverage had been rejected. Although the declarations pages sent to the Romeros and the Jordans listed the amounts of liability and UM/UIM coverages provided by the policies, “the pages did not contain specific references to Plaintiffs’ rejection of UM/UIM coverage” and therefore did not satisfy 13.12.3.9 NMAC. Jordan, No. 28,638, slip op. at 10. Allstate could have incorporated the rejection into the policy by clearly stating on the declarations pages that UM/UIM coverage equal to the policies’ liability limits had been rejected. Accord Vigil v. Rio Grande Ins. of Santa Fe, 1997-NMCA-124, ¶¶ 7, 11, 24, 124 N.M. 324, 950 P.2d 297 (<HOLDING>). We affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that
holding that an insurer may  assert as defenses the nonnegligence of the uninsured the contributory negligence of the insured and the lack of resulting damage all being matters of substantive law and legal defenses of the uninsured but it does not  succeed  to the rights of the uninsured motorist to interpose the latters procedural defense of statute of limitations holding that while the owner of several vehicles by paying a single premium for um coverage applicable to only one of them secures um coverage for himself and his family while occupying the uninsured vehicles as well as the insured vehicle the number of uninsured motorist coverages available to be stacked should be based upon the number of coverages for which uninsured motorist premiums were paid holding that a hit and run or unknown driver is deemed to be uninsured for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute holding that the rejection was made a part of the policy because the declarations pages included the statements uninsured motorist covs rejected and uninsured motorists coverages have been rejected holding term third party did not include an uninsured motorist carrier