Opinion ID: 2636897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the statute of limitations on a claim for indemnity under uninsured motorist coverage should commence to run on the date of the accident giving rise to the claim

Text: ¶ 7 This court held in Uptegraft [2] that an action on a claim for UM benefits is one ex contractu to which the five-year statute of limitations for actions on written contracts applies. [3] Neither the statute creating UM insurance [4] nor any extant decision of this court controls on the point in time at which the limitation here in contest begins to run. ¶ 8 Statutory limitations are designed to afford plaintiffs a reasonable time to press the claims as well as to provide defendants an adequate opportunity to prepare for their defense before supportive proof is lost or becomes stale. [5] They reflect an important public policy that calls for a point of repose to bar potential litigation. [6] That point, beyond which one's legal remedy becomes extinguished, is commonly defined in reference to the time at which an action may first be brought. Accordingly, most statutes of limitation provide that suit must be brought within a specified time after the cause of action accrues. Generally, it may be said that a cause of action accrues for purposes of statutory limitations when a party becomes entitled to enforce a claim against another. This court has variously described accrual as that point in time when a plaintiff can successfully prove the elements of his claim [7] or when a claim holder first could have maintained his action to a successful conclusion. [8] ¶ 9 While the concept of accrual appears simple enough in theory, the date of accrual for UM benefits has been a vigorously contested issue. [9] A leading commentator has isolated four events which might be used as the date when a cause of action on a UM claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run. [10] These are: (1) the date of the accident, (2) the date the insured learns that the tortfeasor is uninsured or underinsured, (3) the date one could reasonably expect the insured to submit a claim for uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits, and (4) the date the insurer rejects the uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance claim. [11] Those courts which have answered today's question have adopted one or another of these events as the limitation's trigger. [12] It is my view that the nature of UM coverage as contractual indemnification mandates that a cause of action for UM benefits be deemed to have accrued on the date of the accident giving rise to the claim. ¶ 10 Indemnity is a specialized form of contract by which one person agrees to compensate another for loss or damage caused by the conduct of one of the parties (to the agreement) or of some other person. [13] Two types of indemnity contracts are recognized at common law: those that indemnify against liability and those against loss. [14] UM coverage represents indemnity for liability because the insurer promises to provide indemnity for the liability of an uninsured motorist arising from a harm-dealing event in the latter's operation of an automobile. An action to enforce a contract of indemnity for liability accrues when the event for which indemnity is due occurs. [15] ¶ 11 Under our scheme of UM/UIM recovery, an insured may bring after an accident a direct action against his (or her) UM/UIM carrier, without first obtaining a judgment against the tortfeasor. [16] It is at the time of the collision  when the insured becomes legally entitled to recover from the uninsured motorist  that the insured may first sue to enforce the terms of the contractual indemnity. Accordingly, I would hold that the cause of action for UM coverage accrues on the date of the accident, and the statute of limitations begins to run from that time. My answer to the certified question would not put the insured in a position of disadvantage. The liability limit of the tortfeasor's policy may be discovered, as early as needed, for the purpose of ascertaining whether UM coverage might have to be invoked. [17] Five years from the date of the accident is not an unreasonable time to require a claimant to commence proceedings for UM benefits. [18] The limitation bar's trigger I propose  that which coincides with the date of injury  is not only reasonable but is also far more consistent with the ancient policy of the law than the elongated period allowed by today's opinion. [19] ¶ 12 The court's pronouncement relies heavily upon the so-called majority position identifying breach of contract as the triggering event for the statute of limitations in a UM/UIM claim. At first blush, the court's lengthy litany of citations from other jurisdictions appears impressive. It becomes less so when the list is analyzed case by case. To begin with, the so-called majority of jurisdictions consists of decisions in barely one-third of the states, and many of them are not from the highest court. [20] Yet others lack persuasive effect because they are rested on the language of the particular insurance policy there under review. [21] I would eschew a mechanistic and superficial fealty to precedent, at least some of which is of dubious value, in favor of anchoring our decision in the more solid foundation provided by the law that governs contracts of indemnity and by our decision in Burch v. Allstate Ins. Co. [22] There we held that a UM carrier is directly and primarily liable to its insured for the entire loss to be indemnified, except where the insured affirmatively destroys the insurer's subrogation right. ¶ 13 The court's reliance upon Uptegraft [23] is equally misplaced. As we explained in that case, [T]he uninsured motorist coverage constitutes a carrier's direct promise to the insured to pay indemnity for a specified loss. [24] Unlike liability insurance, UM coverage does not undertake to protect the insured against liability he may incur to others but rather it compensates him for a loss caused by a specific class of tortfeasors. [25] (emphasis added) Invoking Uptegraft's authority for establishing breach of contract as the event which triggers the statute in a UM claim is a misreading of that case. To the extent that Uptegraft may be said to speak to the issue raised today, it supports my own conclusion of applying to a UM/UIM claim the law that governs contractual indemnification.