[brief] Dated: March 25, 2024  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Preliminary Statement ...........................................................................................................  1  Procedural History ..................................................................................................................  2  Statement of Facts ....................................................................................................................  5  I.  [...]’s insurance policy with [...] .............................................................................  5  II.  [...]’s accident and third-party suit ..............................................................................  5  III.  [...] consented to [...] settling her third-party suit and acknowledged her UIM coverage .........................................................................................................................  6  IV.  [...] offered to settle [...]’s UIM claim, both before and after she sued [...] .................................................................................................................................  7  V.  [...]’s Answer did not invoke any suit limitation provision ......  7  VI.  [...] demanded and received vast amounts of discovery from [...] ..................................................................................................................................................................................  8  Standard of Review ..................................................................................................................  9  Argument ..................................................................................................................................  10  I.  New Jersey’s six-year statute of limitations for UIM claims governs under the policy’s conformity-to-law clause, making [...]’s suit timely.  (Raised Below: Pa6)  ..................................................................................................................  10  A.  The trial court ignored the policy’s conformity-to-law clause and its plain meaning.  ..................................................................................................................  10  B.  Weinroth is incongruous with our modern rules of interpretation for insurance contracts.  .................................................................................................................. 12  II.  Even if the policy’s limitation provision did apply, [...] was equitably estopped from denying coverage.  (Raised Below: Pa6).  ..................................................................................................................  13  A.  [...] protected [...]’s subrogation rights by providing timely notice of her third-party suit.................. 13  B.  By misleading [...] into thinking she would receive her UIM benefit, [...] was equitably estopped from denying coverage.................................................................  15  III.  [...] waived its policy limitation defense by failing to raise it as an affirmative defense.  (Raised Below: Pa5–Pa6).....  18  IV.  The policy’s limitation period, if applicable, was tolled until [...] declined coverage in its Answer, making [...]’s suit timely.  (Raised Below: Pa174).  ..............................................  20  Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................