The Kahns do not assert that Royal made any explicit representation concerning any statute of limitations. In presenting their separate contentions of waiver and estoppel, they rely on portions of two letters that Royal sent to the Kahns' counsel. If you feel that you would rather go through court mandated arbitration, I would agree to using that avenue as mandated by the Massachusetts courts systems. This would constitute a waiver of the process under the policy, which I would agree to as long as you and your client would agree to same. Royal did not waive its right to assert the Florida statute of limitations as a defense.
Waiver consists of the insurer's voluntary or intentional relinquishment of a known right.
The transfer of the claims file to Boston and an expression of willingness to use Massachusetts arbitration procedures, both occurring more than two years before the Florida statute of limitations would bar an action against Royal, does not warrant an inference that Royal accepted the Massachusetts six-year statute of limitations as the controlling one. The transfer of the file to the jurisdiction in which a lawsuit probably would be brought does not waive a right to assert defenses. The offer to waive policy provisions concerning arbitration of the underinsured motorist claim can hardly be taken as an intention to relinquish some other right. See Sheehan v. Commercial Travelers Mut.