J-A05002-16

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL BRISTOL AND RCC, INC.

APPEAL OF: MICHAEL BRISTOL No. 1119 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered March 20, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Civil Division at No(s): 2013-12947

BEFORE: OLSON AND OTT, JJ. and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 27, 2016

Appellant, Michael Bristol, appeals from the trial court’s March 20, 

2015 order, which granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Erie 

Insurance Exchange (hereinafter “Erie”). After careful consideration, we are 

constrained to affirm the trial court’s order because, as the trial court noted, 

the case at bar is controlled by this Court’s opinion in Hopkins v. Erie 

Insurance Co., 65 A.3d 452 (Pa. Super. 2013).

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural 

posture of this case. As the trial court explained:

On [] July 22, 2005, [Appellant] was allegedly injured in a 

hit and run motor vehicle accident at or near the 

intersection of Bethlehem Pike and Tennis Avenue in Upper 

Dublin Township, Montgomery County. On the date of the 

alleged incident, [Appellant] was employed as a lineman for 

RCC, Inc. The incident is alleged to have occurred within 

the course and scope of [Appellant’s] employment with 

RCC, Inc. . . . 
J-A05002-16

- 2 -

RCC, Inc. was insured by Erie pursuant to a Pioneer 

Commercial Auto Fleet Policy. . . . Erie’s Policy included an 

[Uninsured Motorist (hereinafter “UM”)] Coverage 

Endorsement (the “Endorsement”) providing coverage of 

[$500,000.00] per incident[,] non-stacking. The 

Endorsement contained an arbitration clause requiring 

disputes over liability and damages be determined by 

arbitration. The arbitration provision, however, mandates 

that disagreements regarding statutes of limitations be 

determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.[1]

____________________________________________

1

In relevant part, the Endorsement’s Arbitration provision declares:

ARBITRATION

Disagreement over:

1. whether or not anyone we protect is legally entitled to 

recover damages from the owner or operator of an 

uninsured motor vehicle or underinsured motor vehicle; or

2. the amount of damages;

shall be settled by arbitration. The decision of the 

arbitrators shall be limited to, and binding on, these two 

issues. . . .

All other disagreements shall be decided by a court of 

competent jurisdiction and not by arbitration. 

Disagreements to be determined by such court include, but 

are not limited to:

. . .

3. statutes of limitations;

. . .

After written demand for arbitration by either party, each 

party will select an arbitrator. These two will select a third. 

If no selection is made within 30 days, the Judge of the 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A05002-16

- 3 -

On June 19, 2007, [Appellant’s] attorney notified Erie of 

[Appellant’s] [UM] claim. In response, on July 9, 2007, Erie 

sent a Reservation of Rights Letter to [Appellant’s] attorney, 

as well as specific language addressing Erie’s company 

policy as relates to notification of accident or claims. Erie 

also subsequently took a Statement Under Oath from 

[Appellant] on February 12, 2008. . . . 

On August 18, 2010, new counsel for Erie sent a letter to 

Bristol’s then counsel[,] advising of his assumption of 

representation. On September 7, 2010, Erie’s counsel sent 

another letter confirming a conversation with [Appellant’s] 

then counsel wherein [Appellant’s] then counsel advised 

that he was going to appoint an arbitrator. In response, 

Erie’s counsel sent a letter dated September 14, 2010[,] 

designating Erie’s arbitrator. Thereafter, [Appellant] 

appointed an arbitrator and over a period from November 

15, 2010 through September 4, 2012, Erie’s counsel sent 

numerous letters inquiring of [Appellant’s] release status[,] 

as [Appellant] was incarcerated through that entire time 

period. That correspondence went unanswered until 

[Appellant’s] counsel hand wrote on Erie’s counsel’s letter of 

September 4, 2012 that [Appellant] was to be released from 

prison on September 10, 2012. The record . . . is devoid as 

to [Appellant’s] actual release. . . . Simultaneously, for a 

brief time after their selection, some exchange occurred 

between the chosen arbitrators as to appointment of a 

neutral [arbitrator,] but no agreement was reached.

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

Court of Record, in the county where the arbitration is 

pending, will appoint the third arbitrator.

. . .

In all other respects, any arbitration will follow the 

arbitration provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1927. 

Endorsement, June 2003 Edition, at 4 (internal bolding omitted) (emphasis 

in original).
J-A05002-16

- 4 -

The record is devoid of any action by either party from 

September 10, 2012 until May 29, 2013, when Erie filed the 

instant Action for Declaratory Judgment seeking a 

determination that [Appellant’s] [UM] claim is barred by the 

applicable four year statute of limitations[. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 5525(a)(8).] . . . 

Erie filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on or about 

September 11, 2014, seeking a [declaratory judgment in its 

favor]. [Appellant] filed an Answer to Erie’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on October 10, 2014. By order 

[entered on March 20, 2015, the trial court] granted Erie’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Trial Court Opinion, 9/10/15, at 1-3.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant now raises the 

following claim to this Court:

Does the four year statute of limitations under 42 

[Pa.C.S.A.] § 5525 bar a claim for uninsured motorist 

benefits when:

The parties had agreed to arbitrate the claim in 

accordance with the terms of the policy;

The parties had selected their respective arbitrators, but 

had not yet agreed upon the selection of a neutral 

arbitrator;

The claimant had provided a statement under oath to 

the insurer;

The insurer does not allege, and the trial court does not 

find, that the insurer was prejudiced by any delays in 

proceeding to arbitration?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (internal bullets omitted).

As this Court stated:

Our scope of review of a trial court’s order granting or 

denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of 
J-A05002-16

- 5 -

review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only 

where it is established that the court committed an error of 

law or abused its discretion.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record 

clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact 

and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. The reviewing court must view the record in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve 

all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material 

fact against the moving party. Only when the facts are so 

clear that reasonable minds could not differ can a trial court 

properly enter summary judgment.

Englert v. Fazio Mech. Serv.’s, Inc., 932 A.2d 122, 124 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(internal citations omitted).

A claim for UM benefits is subject to the four-year statute of limitations 

applicable to contract actions. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5525(a); see also Boyle v. 

State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 456 A.2d 156 (Pa. Super. 1983); Hopkins, 65 

A.3d at 455-456 and 459. Moreover, under this Court’s precedent, the fouryear statute of limitations for UM benefits begins to run when: “(1) the 

insured was in a motor vehicle accident[;] (2) the insured sustained bodily 

injury as a result of that accident[;] and[,] (3) the insured knows of the 

uninsured status of the other owner or operator.” Boyle, 456 A.2d at 162.

Here, Appellant was injured by a hit-and-run driver and Appellant 

never claimed that he could identify the driver of the vehicle that struck him. 

See Appellant’s Answer to Erie’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 10/10/14, 

at 1-3; Appellant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Erie’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, 10/10/14, at 4-10. As such, under this Court’s precedent, “a 

reasonable person would have known as of the day of the accident that the 
J-A05002-16

- 6 -

vehicle [that hit him was] unidentified and therefore presumptively 

uninsured.” Seay v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 543 A.2d 1166, 

1169 (Pa. Super. 1988). Hence, under this Court’s precedent, the statute of 

limitations for Appellant’s UM claim began to run on the date of the accident 

– which was July 22, 2005. The statute of limitations then expired four 

years later, on July 22, 2009, after Appellant failed to file a praecipe for a 

writ of summons, a complaint, a petition to appoint arbitrators, or a petition 

to compel arbitration in the court of common pleas. 

Moreover, even though Appellant demanded arbitration from Erie 

within four years following the accident, under this Court’s precedent, 

Appellant’s extra-judicial demand did not commence an “action” or toll the 

running of the statute of limitations. Rather, as this Court held in Hopkins, 

to toll the running of the statute of limitations, an insured is required to file, 

in a court, a “petition to appoint arbitrators [or] to compel arbitration.” 

Hopkins, 65 A.3d at 462. Indeed, Hopkins is on all fours with the case at 

bar and demands that we affirm the trial court’s order.

In the Hopkins case, Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins (collectively “the 

insureds”) were insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by 

Erie; the coverage included underinsured motorist benefits and the policy 

contained a mandatory “arbitration provision constituting a valid agreement 

to arbitrate.” Id. at 453 and 455. 

On January 11, 1999, Mrs. Hopkins was involved in an automobile 

accident with an underinsured driver. On June 11, 2004, the insureds sent a 
J-A05002-16

- 7 -

letter to Erie, “asking for permission to settle with the tortfeasor, [] 

demanding underinsured motorist arbitration, and naming their choice of 

arbitrator.”2 Id. at 454. Erie responded on June 28, 2004 and, within Erie’s 

response, Erie “grant[ed] permission for [the insureds] to settle with [the 

tortfeasor,] and not[ed] Erie’s ‘understanding that [the insureds] are 

presenting an [u]nderinsured [m]otorist claim in reference to this matter.’” 

Id. The insureds then settled with the tortfeasor on December 4, 2004. Id.

at 459.

From 2004 until 2010, the insureds and Erie exchanged numerous 

correspondences in an attempt to resolve the underinsured motorist claim. 

These correspondences included: multiple letters from Erie to the insureds, 

requesting that the insureds “forward any and all medical records and any 

and all wage loss records you have in reference to this loss;” the insureds’ 

responses to some of Erie’s requests, including providing Mrs. Hopkins’ 

“medical records, reports, and bills” to Erie; Erie’s request that Mrs. Hopkins 

execute certain authorization forms, so that it could obtain “additional 

records and information in reference to the [underinsured motorist] claim;” 

and, Mrs. Hopkins’ execution of some requested authorizations. Id. at 454-

455. However, the insureds’ underinsured motorist benefits claim was never 

settled with Erie and, on December 2, 2010, the insureds filed, in the court 

____________________________________________

2 We note that the insured sent Erie another demand letter on January 8, 

2008. Hopkins, 65 A.3d at 453.
J-A05002-16

- 8 -

of common pleas, a petition to appoint arbitrators and to compel arbitration. 

See id. at 453-455. The trial court denied the petition, reasoning that the 

insureds’ underinsured motorist claim was barred by the four-year statute of 

limitations. Id. at 455. The insureds appealed and raised three claims to 

this Court. These claims were: 

[1.] Whether the trial court made an error of law and 

manifestly abused its discretion in its calculation of the 

statute of limitations?

[2.] Whether the trial court made an error of law and 

manifestly abused its discretion in determining that the 

statute of limitations was not equitably tolled?

[3.] Whether the trial court made an error of law and 

manifestly abused its discretion in denying [the insureds’] 

petition for appointment of arbitrators and to compel 

arbitration?

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted) (some internal capitalization 

omitted).

With respect to the insureds’ claim that the trial court erred “in its 

calculation of the statute of limitations” for their underinsured motorist 

claim, we analogized the case to our prior precedent involving UM claims. 

Id. at 455-458. As noted above, under this Court’s precedent, the statute 

of limitations for UM benefits begins to run when “the insured knows of the 

uninsured status of the [] owner or operator” who caused the motor vehicle 

accident. Boyle, 456 A.2d at 162. In keeping with this precedent, the 

Hopkins Court held that the statute of limitations for the insureds’ 

underinsured motorist claim began to run “when the insured settles with, or 
J-A05002-16

- 9 -

secures a judgment against, the underinsured owner or operator” that 

caused the motor vehicle accident. Hopkins, 65 A.3d at 459. Thus, in the 

Hopkins case, the statute of limitations for the insureds’ underinsured 

motorist benefits claim began to run on December 4, 2004, when the 

insureds settled with the tortfeasor. Id.

Further, notwithstanding the fact that the insureds and Erie were 

required to arbitrate any dispute between them – and notwithstanding the 

fact that the insureds twice demanded arbitration from Erie and named their 

choice of arbitrator – the Hopkins Court held that the statute of limitations 

for the insureds’ underinsured motorist benefits claim expired on December 

4, 2008, as the insureds failed to file “their petition to appoint arbitrators 

and to compel arbitration” within the requisite time period. The Hopkins

Court explained:

we hold that the four-year statute of limitations on 

underinsured motorist claims begins to run when the 

insured settles with, or secures a judgment against, the 

underinsured owner or operator. Accordingly, [the 

insureds’] underinsured motorist claims in this case are 

barred by the statute of limitations. [The insureds] settled 

with the tortfeasor in the underlying action, on or about 

December 4, 2004. . . . [The insureds] therefore had until 

December 4, 2008 to file their petition to appoint arbitrators 

and to compel arbitration. [The insureds] did not file their 

petition until December 2, 2010. 

Id. at 459.

This Court further held that the numerous correspondence exchanged 

between Erie and the insureds – which were all done in an attempt to 
J-A05002-16

- 10 -

resolve the underinsured motorist benefits claim – did not toll the statute of 

limitations. Id. at 460.

In this appeal, Appellant claims that the four-year statute of limitations 

is inapplicable to his case because he demanded arbitration from Erie and 

both he and Erie appointed their respective arbitrators. In the alternative, 

Appellant claims that Erie should be estopped from invoking the statute of 

limitations defense because Appellant’s counsel “had no reason to believe 

that Erie was challenging the timeliness of [the] claim after it had appointed 

an arbitrator [and Erie] repeatedly inquir[ed] about the incarceration status 

of [Appellant].” Appellant’s Brief at 20. These claims fail. 

First, under the precedent established in Hopkins, Appellant’s extrajudicial demand for arbitration did not commence his action and it did not 

toll the four-year statute of limitations. Certainly, in Hopkins, within the 

statutory time-period, the insureds twice demanded that the insurance 

company proceed to arbitration, and the Hopkins Court nevertheless held 

that the arbitration demands neither commenced the insureds’ underinsured 

motorist benefits action nor tolled the running of the four-year statute of 

limitations. Rather, Hopkins held, the insureds had an obligation to “file [a] 

petition to appoint arbitrators and to compel arbitration” within the statutory 

time period – and that their failure to do so required the dismissal of their 

claim on statute of limitations grounds. Hopkins, 65 A.3d at 459.

Further, we note that the result reached in Hopkins is in accord with 

the wording contained in the relevant statute of limitations. 
J-A05002-16

- 11 -

Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5525(a), an “action upon a contract” must 

“be commenced within four years.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5525(a). As 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5503 then declares, “[a] matter is commenced for the purposes 

of this chapter when a document embodying the matter is filed in an office 

authorized by [42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103] (relating to transfer of erroneously filed 

matters) or by any other provision of law to receive such document.” 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a). Since extra-judicial arbitration demands are not “filed” 

in any office authorized by law “to receive such document,” the extra-judicial 

arbitration demand did not “commence” any “action.” See also Pa.R.C.P. 

1007 (“[a]n action may be commenced by filing with the prothonotary (1) a 

praecipe for a writ of summons, or (2) a complaint”); see also Walker v. 

Providence Ins. Co., 1998 WL 195652 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that an 

insured has “four years from th[e date he is injured by an unidentified, 

uninsured driver] within which to file his petition to compel arbitration” and 

that the appointment of an arbitrator does not toll the statute of limitations); 

Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Weisbaum, 2011 WL 4632479 (E.D. Pa. 

2011) (holding that the statute of limitations had run on the insured’s claim 

for uninsured motorist benefits because he failed to file a petition to compel 

in the court of common pleas, and “the appointment of [an] arbitrator did 

not toll [the] statute of limitations” on the claim).

Moreover, the appointment of the respective arbitrators in the case at 

bar did not toll the statute of limitations because, even if such action could 

act to toll the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations already expired 
J-A05002-16

- 12 -

by the time the parties appointed their respective arbitrators.3 Thus, since 

the statute of limitations already expired, the appointment of arbitrators 

could not have “tolled” the statute of limitations.

Finally, in accordance with Hopkins, the extra-judicial correspondence 

between Appellant and Erie did not toll the statute of limitations. To be 

sure, as the trial court explained:

The [Hopkins] Court [] held [that an individual must file, in 

the court of common pleas, a “petition to appoint arbitrators 

and to compel arbitration” within the statutory time-period,] 

despite the undisputed factual record that the [insureds] 

had sent a demand letter to the carrier along with medical 

records, the carrier had subsequently requested additional 

medical records, and finally, authorizations to obtain 

medical records had been exchanged – all of which occurred 

during the applicable four year period. 

Trial Court Opinion, 9/10/15, at 6-7.

Thus, in accordance with Hopkins, the statute of limitations in this 

case was not tolled merely because the parties were engaged in 

correspondence, in an attempt to resolve the uninsured motorist benefits 

claim. Rather, pursuant to Hopkins, Appellant was at all times required to 

commence his “action” within the required time-period, by filing a praecipe

for a writ of summons, a complaint, a petition to appoint arbitrator, or a 

petition to compel arbitration, with the prothonotary.

____________________________________________

3 The statute of limitations in this case expired on July 22, 2009 and the 

parties did not appoint their arbitrators until September 2010.
J-A05002-16

- 13 -

Simply stated, Hopkins binds this Court.4 Therefore, we conclude 

that the trial court did not err when it granted Erie’s motion for summary 

judgment in this case.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Justice Stevens concurs in the result.

Judge Ott files a Concurring Memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/27/2016

____________________________________________

4 Our prior precedent mandates our current holding, however, we note that 

our precedent runs contrary to “the overwhelming majority” of jurisdictions 

that considered the issue and “concluded that the limitations period begins 

to run on a [UM/]UIM claim upon the insurer’s breach of the insurance 

contract” – rather than upon the date of the accident or upon the date the 

insured knows that the tortfeasor is uninsured or underinsured. American 

States Ins. Co. v. LaFlam, 69 A.3d 831, 839-840 (R.I. 2013). One 

concern is that Pennsylvania’s rule of law may provide insurers with an 

incentive to delay and unnecessarily extend extra-judicial examinations, 

determinations, negotiations, and proceedings in response to the insured’s 

claim until the statute of limitations has run.
J-A05002-16

- 14 -