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

Introducing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore


by Jennifer Verta

This year’s awards reflect the strength of the Best Lawyers network and its role in elevating legal talent worldwide.

2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore

Revealing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria


by Jamilla Tabbara

These honors underscore the reach of the Best Lawyers network and its focus on top legal talent.

map of Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria

Effective Communication: A Conversation with Jefferson Fisher


by Jamilla Tabbara

The power of effective communication beyond the law.

 Image of Jefferson Fisher and Phillip Greer engaged in a conversation about effective communication

The 2025 Legal Outlook Survey Results Are In


by Jennifer Verta

Discover what Best Lawyers honorees see ahead for the legal industry.

Person standing at a crossroads with multiple intersecting paths and a signpost.

The Best Lawyers Network: Global Recognition with Long-term Value


by Jamilla Tabbara

Learn how Best Lawyers' peer-review process helps recognized lawyers attract more clients and referral opportunities.

Lawyers networking

Jefferson Fisher: The Secrets to Influential Legal Marketing


by Jennifer Verta

How lawyers can apply Jefferson Fisher’s communication and marketing strategies to build trust, attract clients and grow their practice.

Portrait of Jefferson Fisher a legal marketing expert

Is Your Law Firm’s Website Driving Clients Away?


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key website issues that may be affecting client engagement and retention.

Phone displaying 'This site cannot be reached' message

A Guide to Workers' Compensation Law for 2025 and Beyond


by Bryan Driscoll

A woman with a laptop screen reflected in her glasses

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends in Texas, Utah, Georgia and SC


by Bryan Driscoll

A fresh wave of medical malpractice reform is reshaping the law.

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends hed

Why Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk Want to 'Delete All IP Law'


by Bryan Driscoll

This Isn’t Just a Debate Over How to Pay Creators. It’s a Direct Challenge to Legal Infrastructure.

Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey standing together Infront of the X logo

Best Lawyers Launches CMO Advisory Board


by Jamilla Tabbara

Strategic counsel from legal marketing’s most experienced voices.

Group photo of Best Lawyers CMO Advisory Board members

Changes in California Employment Law for 2025


by Laurie Villanueva

What employers need to know to ensure compliance in the coming year and beyond

A pair of hands holding a checklist featuring a generic profile picture and the state of California

Common Law Firm Landing Page Problems to Address


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key issues on law firm landing pages to improve client engagement and conversion.

Laptop showing law firm landing page analytics

New Employment Law Recognizes Extraordinary Stress Is Everyday Reality for NY Lawyers


by Bryan Driscoll

A stressed woman has her head resting on her hands above a laptop

Best Lawyers Introduces Smithy AI


by Jamilla Tabbara

Transforming legal content creation for attorneys and firms.

Start using Smithy AI, a content tool by Best Lawyers

How to Create High-Converting Landing Pages for Your Law Firm


by Jamilla Tabbara

Learn how to create high-converting law firm landing pages that drive client engagement and lead generation.

Laptop screen displaying website tools to improve client conversion rates