Opinion ID: 2581939
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: characterization of the tuckers' claims

Text: ¶ 12 While the Tuckers concede that some of their claims are based on a contract of first-party insurance and, as such, are governed by the three-year statute of limitations in section 31A-21-313 of the Utah Code, the Tuckers also argue that other claims in their amended complaint are based on fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, causes of action to which, they argue, the four-year statute of limitations in section 78-12-25(3) applies. The Tuckers' characterization of these claims as based on something other than a contract of first-party insurance is incorrect. ¶ 13 Section 31A-21-313(1) states, An action on a written policy or contract of first party insurance must be commenced within three years after the inception of the loss. As we explained in Beck v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, We use the term first-party to refer to an insurance agreement where the insurer agrees to pay claims submitted to it by the insured for losses suffered by the insured.... In contrast, a third-party situation is one where the insurer contracts to defend the insured against claims made by third parties against the insured and to pay any resulting liability, up to the specified dollar limit. 701 P.2d 795, 799 n. 2 (Utah 1985). Under the PIP provisions of the Tuckers' insurance policy, State Farm has no obligation to defend the Tuckers against claims made by third parties. Rather, State Farm's only obligation under the PIP provisions is to pay claims submitted by the Tuckers for losses suffered by the Tuckers within specified parameters. See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-307 (2001) (describing the parameters of an insurer's obligations concerning personal injury protection coverages and benefits). Thus, in accordance with our definition of first-party in Beck, the Tuckers and State Farm have a first-party relationship. Beck, 701 P.2d at 799 n. 2. ¶ 14 All duties and obligations arising from this first-party contract of insurance are contractual in nature. We reaffirm our position in Beck that in a first-party relationship between an insurer and its insured, the duties and obligations of the parties are contractual rather than fiduciary. Without more, a breach of those implied or express duties can give rise only to a cause of action in contract, not one in tort. Id. at 800. Because the Tuckers and State Farm are in a first-party relationship, and all of the duties and obligations arising from that relationship are contractual in nature, we affirm the trial court's holding that section 31A-21-313, which governs action[s] on written ... contract[s] of first party insurance, is the only statute of limitations applicable to this case and the Tuckers' claims against State Farm must [have been] commenced within three years after the inception of the loss. § 31A-21-313(1) (2001).