Marriott v. Allstate Insurance, 2:18-cv-00629

May 30, 2011 auto accident; Lloyd Allen (insured by AFCIC) was at fault; Marriott had Allstate UIM coverage.
Marriott, through counsel David Shaw (Kirton McConkie), accepted AFCIC’s $100,000 liability settlement offer on December 4, 2014.
AFCIC sent a proposed release and a $100,000 check (payment) to Marriott’s attorney on/around December 12, 2014; the attorney held the check for several weeks.
Marriott signed the release March 17, 2015; AFCIC received the executed release April 7, 2015; the check was deposited April 13, 2015.
Marriott filed this UIM action March 16, 2018. Allstate moved for summary judgment arguing Utah’s three‑year limitations period began at the date of the last liability policy payment (Dec. 2014), barring the suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the 3‑year limitations period begin (date of "last liability policy payment")?	The date of last payment was April 7, 2015 (AFCIC’s receipt of the executed release).	The date of last payment was Dec. 12, 2014 (when AFCIC sent the check) or at latest when counsel received it.	The court held payment occurred when the check was sent/received (Dec. 2014 or shortly thereafter); statute of limitations expired before suit.
Did counsel’s holding of the check or an ethical escrow obligation / the return of the executed release operate as a condition precedent that delayed payment?	Counsel’s ethical duty to hold the check in escrow until the release was returned meant payment was not complete until AFCIC received the release.	No condition was stated; AFCIC placed no restriction on depositing the check; customary or ethical practices do not alter contract terms.	The court held there was no condition precedent; customs/ethical obligations do not change the contract—payment was complete upon sending/receipt.

Applied Genetics Int’l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238 (10th Cir. 1990) (summary judgment: view evidence and inferences in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (plaintiff must have more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment)
Bistline v. Parker, 918 F.3d 849 (10th Cir. 2019) (accrual date is question of law when dates are undisputed)
In re White River Corp., 799 F.2d 631 (10th Cir. 1986) (receipt of a check is commonly treated as the date of payment)
McArthur v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 274 P.3d 981 (Utah 2012) (conditions precedent are typically construed as being outside a party's control)