Insight

Arizona Court of Appeals Confirms UM/UIM Statute of Limitations

In State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Frank, 2024 WL 1202982 (Ariz.App. March 21, 2024), the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed the District Court of Arizona’s recent interpretation of the statute of limitations for UM/UIM claims, ARS § 12-555, and rejected two novel insured arguments.

Nathan D. Meyer

Nathan D. Meyer

May 20, 2024 01:05 PM

In State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Frank, 2024 WL 1202982 (Ariz.App. March 21, 2024), the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed the District Court of Arizona’s recent interpretation of the statute of limitations for UM/UIM claims, ARS § 12-555, and rejected two novel insured arguments.

The Takeaways

  • An insurer does not toll a UM/UIM claimant’s three-year statute of limitations in § ARS 12-555(C)(2) to request arbitration or file suit regarding a disputed UM/UIM claim by failing to remind the insured of the three-year limitations period, as required by ARS § 12-555(C)(1).
  • A UM/UIM insurer does not accept a policy limit demand by silence or failure to respond.
  • An insurer’s request for arbitration or suit does not satisfy the three-year statute of limitations in ARS § 12-555(C)(2)—the insured must request arbitration or file suit.

The Facts

The Insurer issued an Auto Policy and an Umbrella Policy. The Auto Policy provided $100,000 of UIM coverage and the Umbrella Policy provided $2,000,000 of UIM coverage. Just like ARS § 12-555(C)(2),the Auto Policy barred UIM coverage unless the Insured requested arbitration or filed suit within three years of notifying the Insurer of her intent to make a UIM claim. Similar to ARS § 12-555(C)(2), the Umbrella Policy barred UIM coverage unless the Insured filed suit within three years of notifying the Insurer of her intent to make a UIM claim.

In August 2015, the Insured was in an accident and quickly recovered the tortfeasor’s minimum liability limit. On April 20, 2016, the Insured notified the Insurer of her potential UIM claim. On May 18, 2018, the Insurer wrote the Insured, confirmed the Insured’s intent to make a UIM claim, and stated it would consider the date of its letter as the date the Insured notified it of her UIM claim.

In February 2019, the Insured demanded the $2.1 Million cumulative UIM limits. The Insurer did not formally respond. Rather, in April 2019, the Insurer referenced disclosures, deadlines, and arbitrators for a UIM arbitration. An arbitration, however, did not occur. On August 14, 2019, the Insured filed a bad faith complaint against the Insurer. In December 2021, the Insurer filed the subject declaratory judgment action, and the trial court eventually granted summary judgment on all UIM coverage because the Insured never requested arbitration, as required by ARS § 12-555(C)(2).

The Statute

ARS § 12-555 sets forth the statute of limitations for UM/UIM claims. First, subsection (B) provides that an insurer is not liable for UM/UIM benefits unless the insured provides written notice of intent to make a UIM claim within three years of the underlying accident (the “Notice”). Second, subsection (C)(1) requires an insurer, within two years of the Notice, to remind an insured that it will not be liable for UM/UIM beneifits unless the insured requests arbitration or files suit (whichever is required by the policy) within three years of the Notice (the “Reminder”). Third, subsection (C)(2) provides that, if a claimant does not request arbitration or file suit within three years of the Notice, then the insurer is not liable for UM/UIM benefits.

The Rationales

Regarding failure to toll, the Court of Appeals explained, “[c]ommencement of the three-year period in (C)(2) is not tied to the insurer’s compliance with (C)(1),” the Reminder. Rather “subsection (C)(2) unambiguously ties the three-year statute of limitations to the date the [insured’s] notice is provided under subsections (A) or (B),” the Notice. Furthermore, Frank stated this “makes sense because tying the statute of limitations to the [Reminder] could result in a never-ending limitations period if the insurer entirely fails to provide” the Reminder. Thus, the Court of Appeals agreed with Arizona District Court’s similar, recent conclusion in Creasman v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 WL 4533964 (D.Ariz. July 13, 2023), that the Insurer’s “noncompliance with subsection (C)(1)[, the Reminder,] did not change [the Insured’s three-year] deadline under subsection (C)(2).”

Regarding acceptance of a UIM demand by silence or failure to respond, the Court of Appeals noted “one accepts an offer through silence only in limited circumstances” and none of those circumstances were present. The Insurer did not take the benefit of services offered with the offeror’s expectation of compensation. The Insurer did not act inconsistently with an offeror’s ownership of offered property. And, the Insured did not give the Insurer reason to understand that acceptance through silence was sufficient.

Regarding the insufficiency of an insurer’s request (rather than an insured’s request) for arbitration, the Court of Appeals explained subsection (C)(2) requires a “person” to request arbitration or file suit and the remainder of ARS § 12-555 distinguishes between a “person” and an “insurer.”

Resolution

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations for the $100,000 of UIM coverage under the Auto Policy because the Insured never requested arbitration as required by the Policy and ARS § 12-555(C)(2) . But, it vacated summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations for the $2,000,000 of UIM coverage under the Umbrella Policy because the Insured filed suit within three years of the date the Insurer deemed it had notice of the Insured’s intent to make a UIM claim.

You can access the complete Frank opinion here and the full text of ARS § 12-555 here.

Trending Articles

2025 Best Lawyers Awards Announced: Honoring Outstanding Legal Professionals Across the U.S.


by Jennifer Verta

Introducing the 31st edition of The Best Lawyers in America and the fifth edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America.

Digital map of the United States illuminated by numerous bright lights.

Unveiling the 2025 Best Lawyers Awards Canada: Celebrating Legal Excellence


by Jennifer Verta

Presenting the 19th edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada and the 4th edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Canada.

Digital map of Canadathis on illuminated by numerous bright lights

Discover The Best Lawyers in Spain 2025 Edition


by Jennifer Verta

Highlighting Spain’s leading legal professionals and rising talents.

Flags of Spain, representing Best Lawyers country

Unveiling the 2025 Best Lawyers Editions in Brazil, Mexico, Portugal and South Africa


by Jennifer Verta

Best Lawyers celebrates the finest in law, reaffirming its commitment to the global legal community.

Flags of Brazil, Mexico, Portugal and South Africa, representing Best Lawyers countries

Presenting the 2025 Best Lawyers Editions in Chile, Colombia, Peru and Puerto Rico


by Jennifer Verta

Celebrating top legal professionals in South America and the Caribbean.

Flags of Puerto Rico, Chile, Colombia, and Peru, representing countries featured in the Best Lawyers

Prop 36 California 2024: California’s Path to Stricter Sentencing and Criminal Justice Reform


by Jennifer Verta

Explore how Prop 36 could shape California's sentencing laws and justice reform.

Illustrated Hands Breaking Chains Against a Bright Red Background

Tampa Appeals Court ‘Sends Clear Message,” Ensuring School Tax Referendum Stays on Ballot


by Gregory Sirico

Hillsborough County's tax referendum is back on the 2024 ballot, promising $177 million for schools and empowering residents to decide the future of education.

Graduation cap in air surrounded by pencils and money

Find the Best Lawyers for Your Needs


by Jennifer Verta

Discover how Best Lawyers simplifies the attorney search process.

A focused woman with dark hair wearing a green top and beige blazer, working on a tablet in a dimly

Paramount Hit With NY Class Action Lawsuit Over Mass Layoffs


by Gregory Sirico

Paramount Global faces a class action lawsuit for allegedly violating New York's WARN Act after laying off 300+ employees without proper notice in September.

Animated man in suit being erased with Paramount logo in background

The Human Cost


by Justin Smulison

2 new EU laws aim to reshape global business by enforcing ethical supply chains, focusing on human rights and sustainability

Worker wearing hat stands in field carrying equipment

Introduction to Demand Generation for Law Firms


by Jennifer Verta

Learn the essentials of demand gen for law firms and how these strategies can drive client acquisition, retention, and long-term success.

Illustration of a hand holding a magnet, attracting icons representing individuals towards a central

Social Media for Law Firms: The Essential Beginner’s Guide to Digital Success


by Jennifer Verta

Maximize your law firm’s online impact with social media.

3D pixelated thumbs-up icon in red and orange on a blue and purple background.

ERISA Reaches Its Turning Point


by Bryan Driscoll

ERISA litigation and the laws surrounding are rapidly changing, with companies fundamentally rewriting their business practices.

Beach chair and hat in front of large magnify glass

How Client Testimonials Fuel Client Acquisition for Law Firms


by Nancy Lippincott

Learn how client testimonials boost client acquisition for law firms. Enhance credibility, engage clients and stand out in a competitive legal market.

Woman holding blurb of online reviews

Critical Period


by Armelle Royer and Maryne Gouhier

How the green-energy raw materials chase is rewriting geopolitics

Overhead shot of mineral extraction plant

Best Lawyers Expands With New Artificial Intelligence Practice Area


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers introduces Artificial Intelligence Law to recognize attorneys leading the way in AI-related legal issues and innovation.

AI network expanding in front of bookshelf