OPINION
{1} In response to the motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs’ attorney, we have filed an order. Additionally, we now withdraw the opinion filed on December 15, 2006, and substitute this opinion in its stead.
{2} In this appeal, we must answer the question expressly left unresolved in Ellis v. Cigna Property & Casualty Cos.,
{3} In this opinion, we treat UIM and UM policies as equivalents and often use the terms interchangeably. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Stone,
I. BACKGROUND
{4} In January 1997, Plaintiff Ryan Brooks (Ryan) suffered injuries in a car accident and notified Defendant on the day of the accident. At the time of the accident, Ryan was a minor residing with his mother, Plaintiff Donna Brooks, who was the named policyholder on the insurance policy at issue in this case. The driver of the other vehiсle was at fault in the accident, was insured by Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), and carried minimum liability coverage for the accident in the amount of $25,000. Plaintiffs obtained consent from Defendant to settle Ryan’s liability claim with Allstate for less than the amount of alleged damages and did so for the sum of $21,000, while preserving his UIM claim against Defendant.
{5} Between August 2001 and February 2002, Plaintiffs and Defendant attempted, unsuccessfully, to agree on the value of Ryan’s UIM clаim. Defendant offered to settle the claim for $2,000, Ryan made a counteroffer of $15,000, and Defendant responded by offering $3,500. More than a year and a half later, in a letter dated October 29, 2003, Defendant set forth its position that the UIM claim had expired under the applicable six-year statute of limitations for contract actions.
{6} In February 2004, Plaintiffs filed the current action for declaratory judgment and to compel Defendant to arbitrаte Ryan’s UIM claim. Arbitration is the method required under the insurance policy to resolve insured-insurer UIM disputes. In its answer, Defendant raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Defendant then filed a memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment and contended that the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ UIM coverage bars any recovery and thus precludes arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a countermotion for summary judgment requesting that the district court declare that the statute of limitations had not lapsed. The court denied Defendant’s motion, granted Plaintiffs’ motion, and ordered the parties to arbitrate Ryan’s UIM claim. Defendant appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
{7} “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
B. Accrual of Cause of Action for UIM Coverage
{8} As we have stated, the issue presented has been left expressly undecided in New Mexico by our Supreme Court’s opinion in Ellis, in which the Court determined that the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions applies to UM claims.
{9} Premising its arguments on the first and third options, Defendant contends that either the date of the accident or, if the policy controls, the end of the policy’s thirty-day period after notification of the accident triggers the running of the six-year statute of limitations on Ryan’s UIM claim. Therefore, according to Defendant, the limitations period lapsed in either January or February 2003, and either date is at least a year before Plaintiffs filed the current petition to compel arbitration of the dispute. Plaintiffs rely on the fourth option and argue that the limitations period begins to run when there is a breach as evidenced by a refusal to arbitrate, a denial of the UIM claim under the insurance contract, or another violation of the insurance contract. We agree with Plaintiffs.
{10} New Mexico casе law and public policy support our conclusion that a cause of action for UIM coverage begins to accrue when the insurance contract is breached. The Ellis court applied the statute of limitations for contract actions to UM claims because liability for UM coverage is predicated on the insurance contract. Id. ¶ 6. Defendant’s argument that the accident triggers the limitations period mistakenly views аn action to recover UIM coverage as a tort-based theory of recovery, rather than a contract-based theory. The decision in Ellis rejects this view. Id. Defendant’s argument that a claim for UIM benefits is not a claim for breach of contract ignores the distinction between the right to make a claim under a contract and the right to sue for breach of the contract. While we generally agree with Defendant’s statement thаt a claim for UIM benefits is merely “a claim for payment of benefits under the contract” and not a claim for breach of contract, once the claim for payment of benefits is denied, the right to claim benefits under a contract becomes a right to sue for breach of that contract. Defendant claims that “it makes no sense ... to establish a trigger for the running of the statute of limitations that bears no relation to the nature of the underlying claim being asserted.” We conclude, however, that the “claim being asserted” is the right to sue for breach of contract, not the right to make a claim under the contract.
{11} Accordingly, the predicate to the current suit is Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant refused to arbitrate or has otherwise breached the insurance contract. It is a fundamental principle of contract law that “[t]he statute of limitations on a breaсh of contract claim runs from the date the contract is breached.” Nashan v. Nashan,
{12} Defendant contends that New Mexico case law and the insurance policy itself support the proposition that a cause of action to recover UIM damages accrues on the date of the accident. Defendant argues that because case law allows an insured to immediately assert a claim for UM benefits directly against the сarrier without first bringing an action against an uninsured tortfeasor, the insured’s cause of action accrues for purposes of triggering the statute of limitations when the insured can prove negligence and is entitled to recover damages, which is at the time of the accident. Defendant also points to language in the insurance policy stating that Defendant is not bound by any judgment obtained against the tortfeasor without Defendant’s written consent. This lаnguage, according to Defendant, demonstrates that the policy itself recognizes that the date of the accident triggers the limitations period.
{13} We are not persuaded that our case law or the insurance policy demands this result. In Guess v. Gulf Insurance Co.,
{14} Faced with the identical argument — ■ that because a suit may be brought immediately against the insurer, the action accrues at the time of the accident — the Arkansas Supreme Court reached the same conclusion on the same rationale that we adopt today. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co.,
{15} We agree with the line of cases holding that the limitations period for seeking UIM coverage does not begin to run until there is a justiciable claim based on a “failure to do that which is required under the terms of the policy.” Snyder v. Case,
{16} In addition, as a practical matter, the rule of discovery that “dictates that a cause of action does not accrue for purposes of calculating the limitations period until the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the facts that underlie his or her claim” is not served by tying the cause of action to the date of the accident. Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc.,
{17} Defendant also argues that another provision in the insurance рolicy recognizes that the cause of action accrues at the time of accident. Defendant points to the following condition in the policy and contends that it must be met before suit may be filed against the insurer:
2. Suit Against Us
There is no right of action against us:
c. under uninsured and unknown motorists, medical payments, any physical damage, death, dismemberment and loss of sight and loss of earnings coverages, until 30 days after we get the insured’s notice of accident or loss.
Defendant seеms to argue that this provision marks the only condition to suit, indicating that a UIM claim has accrued after the thirty-day period following the insured’s notice of the accident. We disagree. This condition for a right of action states only the date before which a suit cannot be filed; it does not dictate the time before which a suit must be filed. We also note that Defendant’s insurance policy clearly provides that disagreement as to the insured’s entitlement to UM or UIM coverage and the amount thereof “shall be decided by arbitration upon written request of the insured or us.” Therefore, we will not read into the condition for a right of action an intent to trigger the limitations period on an insured’s claim; nor do we pass on the reasonableness or enforceability of such an intent. Cf. Battishill v. Farmers Alliance Ins. Co.,
{18} Defendant finally contends that assigning the accrual date of a UIM claim to the breach of the contract is unfair and violates public policy by permitting an insured to have unilateral control over the limitations period on the claim. Defendant argues that such a rule would require an insurance company to remain liable for a potential claim until the insured decided to make a demand under the policy. We address Defendant’s concerns. First, the insurer can avoid delay by compelling arbitration of the insured’s UIM claim under the contract. See Berkshire Mut. Ins. Co. v. Burbank,
C. Timely Filing of Plaintiffs’ Action
{19} In our application of the rule we announce herein, we observe that the record does not clearly indicate when the agreement between the parties as to the value of Ryan’s UIM claim ultimately failed and arbitration became appropriate under the contract terms. It is also unclear whether or when Plaintiffs requested arbitration. The record reveals the following facts. The offers Defendant made for Plaintiffs’ UIM coverage between August 2001 and February 2002 appear substantially lower than the claimed recovery, and Defendant’s letter dated October 29, 2003, expressed Defendant’s belief that the claim had expired. See, e.g., Norfleet v. Safeway Ins. Co.,
{20} Based on these facts, it is clear that, counting backwards from the date of Plaintiffs’ suit, the parties were engaged in negotiations over the value of the UIM claim, in compliance with the insurance contract, during the six-year limitations period for bringing contract actions. As long as negotiations in сompliance with the insurance contract were ongoing, there was no breach of contract. According to Defendant, negotiations were still ongoing as late as February 21, 2002. Therefore, although we do not point to one particular event in the fact pattern as the breach, we hold that the undisputed facts indicate that Plaintiffs’ filing of the current action must have occurred within six years of any failure to comply with the pоlicy terms. For these reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs timely filed the current action to compel arbitration of the UIM claim under the contract.
III. CONCLUSION
{21} For the reasons discussed above, we hold that Plaintiffs timely filed this action for declaratory judgment and for specific performance of the insurance contract to compel arbitration. As a result, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and ordering the parties to arbitrate the UIM claim.
{22} IT IS SO ORDERED.