O'Neill v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C8-85-1626,C8-85-1626 |
| Citation | 381 N.W.2d 439 |
| Parties | Ernest O'NEILL, Jr., et al., Respondents, v. ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The statute of limitations on a cause of action to imply underinsured motorist coverage in an insurance policy and to recover benefits under the implied-in-law coverage begins to run on the date of the auto accident causing claimant's injury.
Lawrence M. Rocheford, St. Paul, for appellant.
Douglas Peine, Minneapolis, James R. Tschida, St. Paul, for respondents.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
When does the statute of limitations begin to run on a cause of action to imply underinsured motorist coverage in an insurance policy and to recover underinsured motorist benefits under the implied coverage? We hold it begins on the date of the automobile accident causing claimant's injury.
On October 18, 1978, plaintiff-respondent Patricia O'Neill, then 14, was injured in an auto accident. On April 26, 1985, 6 1/2 years after the accident, she and her father brought this action for underinsured motorist benefits against the father's liability carrier, defendant-appellant Illinois Farmers Insurance Company. The district court denied defendant's claim that the action was barred by the statute of limitations and certified the question to the court of appeals as important and doubtful. We accepted the court of appeals' certification of the appeal to us for accelerated review.
About 4 1/2 years after the auto accident, on March 16, 1983, O'Neill settled her tort claim with the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. About 2 years later, on April 26, 1985, she commenced this action. 1 The trial court reasoned that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until there was a breach of contract and that the breach did not occur until Illinois Farmers had denied a claim for underinsured benefits. This denial, all parties agree, did not occur until sometime after the settlement with the tortfeasor, and, therefore, within 6 years prior to the filing of this suit. The trial judge also based his ruling partially on an assumption that Illinois Farmers' policy contained an "exhaustion clause," providing that there would be no coverage until tort liability coverage had been used up.
Plaintiffs' cause of action is to establish an implied-in-law contract for underinsured motorist coverage and to recover benefits under that coverage. We agree with the parties that this action sounds in contract and is governed by the 6-year statute of limitations for contracts. Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1) (1984). 2 The limitation period begins to run when the cause of action "accrues," or, put differently, when an action thereon can be brought. E.g., Bachertz v. Hayes-Lucas Lumber Co., 201 Minn. 171, 176, 275 N.W. 694, 697 (1937). Having said this, we still have a distance to go, for when did plaintiffs' cause of action accrue?
O'Neill argues that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues upon a breach and points out that an insurance contract is breached when an insurer refuses to pay a rightful claim. Olson v. Rugloski, 277 N.W.2d 385 (Minn.1979). Because a refusal normally does not occur until a claimant demands payment, O'Neill concedes that the statute of limitations might not begin to run indefinitely. But see Weston v. Jones, 160 Minn. 32, 36, 199 N.W. 431, 433 (1924) (). More importantly, however, O'Neill's argument overlooks that her action is for more than a refusal to pay a claim. Her action necessarily includes first amending the insurance contract to imply the covenant which makes the refusal to pay a breach of contract. Patricia O'Neill would not have had standing to amend the policy prior to her injury, and, while her father, the policyholder, might theoretically have done so, practically, it would seem he need only have asked to buy the underinsured coverage and it would have been sold to him. Rather, it is when the accident giving rise to the injury happens that a cause of action to establish implied-in-law underinsured motorist coverage accrues. It is at this time that the injured person can bring an action for underinsured motorist benefits.
Plaintiffs argue that a cause of action for underinsured benefits cannot be brought until it is known if the tortfeasor is underinsured. Aside from the fact that policy provisions requiring an exhaustion of remedies against the tortfeasor are not a bar to an underinsured motorist benefits claim, Schmidt v. Clothier, 338 N.W.2d 256 (Minn.1983), steps taken by a claimant in ascertaining what underinsured motorist benefits she might be entitled to, do not preclude the statute of limitations from beginning to run. See,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Selective Ins. Co. of America
...insurance and the tort actions. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kilbreath, 419 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla.1982); O'Neill v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 381 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Minn.1986); see also Fladd v. Fortune Ins. Co., 530 So.2d 388, 390-91 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (applying same rationale to cla......
-
Eidemiller v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
... ... Farmers Insurance Exchange, 219 Kan. 595, 608, 549 P.2d 1354 (1976). K.S.A. 40-284(d) prohibits the ... Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 381 N.W.2d 439 (Minn.1986) (where action is to imply underinsured motorist ... ...
-
Mackereth v. G.D. Searle and Co.
... ... No. 1-95-4194 ... Appellate Court of Illinois", ... First District, Sixth Division ... Dec. 20, 1996 ... \xC2" ... Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 381 N.W.2d 439 (Minn.1986) ... While we do ... ...
-
Miklas v. Parrott
... ... Stephen Travis PARROTT, et al., Defendants, ... Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Respondent ... No. C4-02-2021 ... Supreme ... See Beaudry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 518 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn.1994), overruled in part by Oanes v ... ...