American States Insurance Company v. LaFLAM, 808 F. Supp. 2d 400

LaFlam was injured in a 2007 accident involving a vehicle insured by ASIC's policy to LaFlam's employer.
LaFlam sent a letter of representation and potential claim to ASIC on April 3, 2008; ASIC acknowledged and sought more information.
ASIC contacted LaFlam several times between September 2008 and May 2009 for updates and information.
ASIC authorized settlement of LaFlam's underlying tort claims on February 18, 2010.
LaFlam demanded $1 million for UM benefits on May 19, 2010; ASIC filed suit about three months later.
The dispute centers on whether the Policy's three-year contractual limitations period for UM claims is enforceable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the 3-year UM limitations void as against public policy?	LaFlam argues the provision is void as public policy.	ASIC contends the provision aligns with public policy and is enforceable.	The provision is not void as against public policy.
When does the UM contractual limitation period commence?	LaFlam contends accrual timing creates ambiguity.	RI law places accrual at the date of the accident, beginning the limitation period then.	Accrual begins at the date of the accident.

Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Lyden, 986 A.2d 231 (R.I. 2010) (limitations period in UM coverage bound as a contract term)
Nat'l Refrigeration, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 947 A.2d 906 (R.I. 2008) (policy terms including limitations periods bind the parties)
Hay v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 458 (R.I. 2003) (limits for insurance contract provisions upheld)
DiIorio v. Abington Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 402 A.2d 745 (R.I. 1979) (premature extension of performance limitations upheld)
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Barry, 892 A.2d 915 (R.I. 2006) (accrual date for UM claim)