*1 tortfeasor, carrier, only on notice to the UM/UIM required relitigate be those same issues an arbitration carrier, proceeding with the cannot be reconciled with UM/UIM prompted Legislature considerations that to man availability date coverage all insureds. Just UM/UIM Legislature’s purpose as the can be thwarted unreasonable Ciecka, restrictions on coverage, or exclusions from supra, 81 N.J. 427-28, legislative goal 409 A.2d so too is the obstructed delay unreasonably payment conditions that of the benefits provide. was intended to UM/UIM

IV judgment We reverse the Division. Justice, WILENTZ, For reversal —Chief and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, COLEMAN and STEIN —7.

Opposed one.—-N GREEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

ROBERT v. SELECTIVE (SELECTED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA RISKS COMPANY), INSURANCE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Argued January 1996—Decided June 1996. *2 Gary Wodlinger D. argued appellant (Lipman, cause Antonelli, Bait, Gilson, Dunlap, Wodlinger attorneys; Don- brief). Taylor, na M. on the (Tucker, argued

Edward J. Tucker respondents the cause for Munyon, attorneys). Latterman & *3 opinion by of the Court was delivered O’HERN, J. (1) appeal presents

This two issues: whether the statute of (UIM) limitations on a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to run on begins the date of an accident or on the breach of the contract; insurance and whether this has forfeited a claimant by failing give prompt collect underinsurance benefits company notice to the insurance having prejudiced or otherwise company’s subrogation rights. the insurance

I Green, plaintiff, injured On October Robert was in a car, by three-car automobile accident. Tingle, One driven Johnnie with Mary collided a car driven Galex. The two then' collided Tingle $15,000 with liability Green’s car. The car had a insurance $250,000 (These policy, and policy.. the Galex car had a were the limits.) $100,000 per person Green had of UIM with (Selective). defendant Company Selective Risks Insurance An oversimplified graphic of insight the accident scene lends into the statute of limitations issue. reasonably per-

Green believed that to recover for his serious injuries, sonal he would have to mahe a claim under his UIM $82,000. policy. Green valued his claim at over Selective had early general injuries. notice of paid extent of Green’s It him (PIP) personal injury policy. During benefits under the treatment, pay course of Green’s Selective refused to continue to being medical bills that were incurred. Green had to sue Selective provide ultimately the PIP benefits. That case was settled parties. Tingle. August June Green sued Galex $15,000 Tingle’s paid insurance carrier its limits into court. proceed Green refused to settle for that amount and wished to *4 litigation. Inadvertently, with the the file was closed without parties during pendency notice to the the the lawsuit. On 26, 1992, case, August reopened years the court the five after the interim, original complaint Tingle was filed. the had died. 1, February The court held a settlement conference on 1993. company responsible Galex’s insurance denied that Galex was for accident, $2,500 any against the but offered to settle claims her. Tingle’s testimony, Green believed without he would be Therefore, prove unable to that Galex was hable for the accident. Selective, by telephone company, he contacted his own insurance rights preserve under writing, his underinsurance and later Houten, 538 A.2d 414 Longworth v. Van Longworth requirements as (App.Div.1988). summarized the We follows: providing UIM benefits is an insured under an automobile insurance [W]hen legal against tortfeasor, action the the

involved in an accident and undertakes during If, the insurer that action. the pendency insured must notify insurance insufficient satisfy the tortfeasor’s claim, proves again damages, of that the insured should the UIM insurer notify insured’s then fact. (1995).] [Rutgers Vassas, Ins. Co. v. 139 N.J. A.2d Casualty it its file representative told Green considered Selective’s time, passage of and that' he should exercise his closed due to the judgment accept to whether or not to the offer. Green own as accept decided to the settlement. accident, February seven after the Green over

sought of his claim Selective for UIM benefits. arbitration of limitations barred Green’s asserted that the statute Selective claim, any duty company to arbitrate. In March and the denied brought declaratory judgment compel action Green summary moved for to submit to arbitration. Selective Selective argument, trial judgment September on 1993. After oral granted complaint, motion and dismissed court Selective’s Green’s of limitations. It holding that the claim was barred the statute 2A:1<H, six-year statute of limitations ruled that N.J.S.A. claims, applicable begun to run on the date of the to contract had accident, expired on the claim more and that time had therefore year brought than a before Green suit Selective. appeal, Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s On limitations. dismissal but not on the basis of the statute of Instead, Rutgers Casualty. it on our recent decision in relied certification, asserting complied petitioned for that he had Green processing guidelines with the Vassas of UIM claims. We (1995). granted petition. 142 We now his N.J. judgment Division and reinstate reverse the complaint against Selective. Green’s

349 II “plumb This is not the case which to the intricacies” of the v. Riccio Prudential coverage. law of underinsured motorist Co., Property Casualty & Ins. 108 N.J. 531 A.2d 717 Riccio, (1987). subject, that this character Court observed argument “really quite simple,” ized at oral in that as case was of, Ibid. One anything simple. thing but that we are certain however, increasingly important is the role that UM and UIM generally See coverages play reparations. in automobile claim Scott, Motorist Insurance: Gerald W. Uninsured/Underinsured Giant, Sleeping A B. 1994); 63 J. Kan. Ass’n 28 (May Cynthia M. Jersey New Auto Insurance Law Pomeroy, Craig & Daniel J. cursory Craig Pomeroy]. & A review of recent [hereinafter of such insurance. Ainsworth v. rulings importance confirms the Co., N.J.Super. 117, State Farm Mut. Ins. 284 663 A.2d 1365 denied, (1996); N.J. (App.Div.1995), 143 670 A.2d 1068 certif. Co., Property Casualty Keystone. Prudential & Ins. Co. 286 (Law Div.1995); N.J.Super. Coniglario v. Hanover 668 A.2d 92 Co., (Law Div.1989), N.J.Super. Ins. over 559 A.2d 875 Co., Harleysville-Garden ruled Hesser v. State Ins. (App.Div.1996). policy impose specific The standard automobile insurance does upon policyholders purchase coverage. duties who These obligation notify company include the the insurance accident, cooperate investigation any with the and defense claim, copies legal papers brought, if to forward of all suit is preserve subrogation rights against insurance carrier’s however, not, set tortfeasor. The standard automobile does period forth a of limitations within which time a claim for UIM contrast, brought. governed PIP claims are must be Co., Zupo v. CNA Ins. See special statute of limitations. (1984). N.J. 483 A .2d 811 question

This is the first time that we have addressed begins to run on a UIM claim. when the statute of limitations until argues Plaintiff the cause of action did not arise *6 underlying automobile case had been terminated and the insur coverage. company ance denied A number of cases have so held. See, Altman, e.g., 200 491 Allstate Ins. Co. v. (Ch.Div.1984) (explaining analogous that A.2d 59 the cause of breach). policy a does not until A action under UM accrue majority jurisdictions relationship has held that the contractual between the insured and the insurer underlies an action for UIM benefits, relationship not the to the tortfeasor. These courts have period begins that the limitations for a concluded company policy, run when the insurance makes a breach of the not Co., Liberty when accident Blutreich v. the occurs. Mut. Ins. 170 (1991) (statute 541, 1167, 1169 2 Ariz. 826 P.2d n. of limitations on begins insured’s UIM claim to run when insurer breaches insur contract); Metropolitan Property Liability ance & Ins. Co. v. Walker, 1020, 594, (same); Upte 136 N.H. 620 1022 A.2d (Okla.1983) (“The Co., 681, graft v. Home Ins. 662 P.2d 685 recovery ultimately upon of the insured is based the without liability imposed upon which no could be the insurer for the tort of another.”); Barcom, 575, Ins. Co. v. 112 773 Wash.2d P.2d Safeco (1989) (statute begins against 60 of limitations to run insured insurer). on date of breach UIM contract Selective contends that the statute limitations for UIM claims begin jurisdictions should to run on the date of the accident. The approach that favor this that reason the of action the plaintiffs right UIM carrier stems from the of action the tortfeasor, period begins and thus the limitations at the same time for both the insurance and tort the actions. State Farm Mut. Kilbreath, (Fla.1982); Auto. Ins. 419 Co. So.2d O’Neill Co., (Minn.1986); v. Illinois Farmers Ins. 381 N.W.2d see (Fla.Dist.Ct. Co., also Fladd v. Fortune Ins. 530 So.2d 390-91 App.1988) (applying same rationale to claim for PIP benefits and accident). concluding that cause of action arises at time of disagree reasoning with (although We the of those cases we result) disagree not repeatedly with the because our cases have emphasized that conceptually the nature of a UIM claim is differ- Riccio, recovery from the in tort. 108 N.J. ent (noting although claimant is remitted to A .2d 717 principles liability of uninsured and common-law tort to establish damages, rights claimant’s under UM nature and extent of carrier). governed endorsement are contract with UM Although respect reasoning we of the cases that have held until the claim does not arise there is breach contract, holding insurance we believe that such a runs counter to require policies prompted Legislature that have coverage availability and the inclusion of uninsured motorist every insurance underinsured motorist automobile policy. legislative policy “provid[e] That seeks to maximum and *7 financially expeditious protection to the innocent victims of irre sponsible Longworth, supra, N.J.Super. at motorists.” goals, Longworth court 538 A.2d 414. Consistent with those said: legislative coverage are of the view that the scheme in of UM and UIM

We respect congruent affording intended to the insured a contractual was be basically against his own insurer to at least in for the tortfeasor’s insurance compensate part at all or underinsurance has that is no insurance Whether inadequacy. inadequacy legislative no under the the insured victim’s since, scheme, consequence conceptual coverage contractual is in both cases limited to the amount of the recovery in the case of no from his own carrier. The difference is that only purchased obligated coverage to to the limit. the carrier is its own insurance, pay up obligated In to its insured underinsurance, the case of the carrier is pay up coverage Everything coverage limit the tortfeasor’s limit. else is the same. less being it is to that the most efficient and the so, That dear us procedure procedure comporting legislative most with the intent would be to the insured nearly permit coverage his under the without first at his to UIM victim, pursue remedy option, having against If arbitration to conclude his claim the tortfeasor. the consequent damages finding and an in excess resulted in a of the tortfeasor’s award liability coverage, from the tortfeasor’s the insured victim would be entitled to recover damages in the amount of his actual or daim, the UIM carrier on the UIM namely, coverage At is the tortfeasor’s limits. less, the UIM whichever reduced limit, received an offer from the that whether or not the insured had yet point, - it the UIM carrier could determine whether wished tortfeasor, preserve subrogation right If it it could also its insured the did, the tortfeasor. pay limit and itself the claim the tortfeasor. tortfeasor’s prosecute policy (footnote omitted).] [Id at 538A.2d 414 unreported decision of attention has been called to a recent Our Appellate disagreed with the conclusion that the Division six-year period provided began N.J.S.A 2A:14-1 to run for a suggested claim UIM on the date of the accident. The court required because N.J.S.A. 17:28-l.le the exhaustion of all avail- coverage, might able automobile insurance a claim not arise on the date of the accident. however, believe,

We that once an automobile accident “target victim knows or has reason to know that a defendant” is underinsured, permits the contract the accident victim to make a A policy. under the cause of action accrues because Moise, capable present “there exists a claim enforcement.” Les Co., Rossignol Inc. v. Ski 122 Wis.2d 361 N.W.2d omitted). (quotation Our eases hold that the arbitrator of fully UM qualified benefits under the automobile liability coverage resolve issues and thus to determine policies whether other auto insurance are available. Gold Co., Casualty Aetna & Ins. Life (App.Div.1989), explained court that when N.J.S.A 17:28-l.le speaks coverage, plainly of “available” insurance it refers to

that of actual who are tortfeasors and not that of those persons responsible who being have been “involved” in the accident without liable under the law. To rule otherwise would lead to the result that underinsured would be eliminated whenever blameless involved in an accident entirely persons happen be insured. heavily

[Id. 854.] A.2d 276, 558 Longworth, Division held that “UIM *8 choose, may, they if carriers honor demands from their insureds to proceed prior disposition to arbitration of the UIM claim of the Longworth, supra, N.J.Super. the tortfeasor.” 223 195, at 538A.2d 414.

Thus, case, perhaps entirely in this the fact that the blameless heavily but in Galex was involved the accident should not deprive “practical Green of his UIM benefits. This is the common understanding sense of the term in ‘available’ as used N.J.S.A 17:28-l.le____” Co., Indemnity Dickenson v. N.J.Super. Ins. 276 72, (Law Div.1994). 79, circumstances, 647 A.2d 192 In such “allowing proceed get compensation arbitration to so as to to an injured litigate party while the carriers as to which must ultimate 82, ly pay appropriate goal____” (citing is an Id. at 647 A.2d 192 Co., (1984)). 42, Parks Colonial Penn Ins. 98 N.J. 484 A.2d approach One of the themes that we have stressed in our to the that, handling greatest possible, issues is to the UIM extent we attempt up package should to tie in all one of the loose ends that Parks, ap are attendant to automobile-accident claims. we plauded “one-stop” proceeding the aim of a whenever the interests Parks, parties procedurally protected. supra, of the were 98 N.J. Hence, although conceptually 484 A.2d 4. it is reasonable to that a claim state under UIM does not arise until its rejection, goals that it we believe is more consistent with the and philosophy thought of UIM that the claims be to arise at context, analogous Craig the time of the accident. In a somewhat Pomeroy and observe that UM claimants must raise their demand Pomeroy, Craig for arbitration within six of the accident. & Law, 1(b), supra, Jersey § at 299. New Auto Insurance 23:3— many complexities wrap-up We realize there are Riccio, supra, such cases. 108 N.J. at 531 A.2d problems Court decided that it would “not address a number of fringes pattern that lurk in fact before us.” See also Ainsworth, (holding supra, Long- compelled insurance carriers are not to arbitrate until satisfied). believe, however, that worth conditions are We processing generally claims of the tort action and insurance should corollary A is that start at the same time. of this conclusion fully keep company claimant’s counsel should the UIM insurance parallel handling and informed alerted automobile Reporter tort claim. A Insurance recent article the Automobile is to this effect. Motorist Cover Uninsured Underinsured (June 1995). age, Rep. goal of this Automobile Ins. 26-27 that, parallel management possible, to the maximum extent we Parks, “one-stop” proceeding. aim a should achieve the 98 N.J. at 484 A.2d 4.

354 Ins., Zirger 144 N.J. 676 A .2d v. General Accident (1996), today, future also decided we set forth as notice, damages in

subject proper a contested trial of to underlying tort suit will establish the value of the UIM claim. As more familiar with the different avenues for the bar becomes recovery, process reparations be the entire of automobile expedited. keeping philosophy, with that we believe that the run from the statute of limitations on claims should date UM/UIM otherwise, last, might it automobile cases as of an accident. Were (two here, years years injury eight personal or more for the limitations and six for the statute of statute of UM/UIM limitations). That makes little There should be more than sense. years. enough to resolve all the issues within six The more time question ruling given be difficult is whether our should retroactive effect.

Ill retroactivity primary resolving questions focus in “[T]he justice, with ‘considerations of fairness and related reasonable surprise prejudice to those affected.’” Green v. Auerbach 591, 600-01, Corp., 127 N.J. 606 A.2d 1093 Chevrolet (quoting Jersey New Election Law v. Comm’n Citi Enforcement Work, Mayor-Council zens to Make 107 N.J. Gov’t (1987)). interpretation A.2d 1069 Auerbach involved the of a statutory age majority amendment lowered the from twenty-one eighteen. The issue was whether the amendment twenty-one eighteen age also reduced from until which the periods light limitations were tolled. held that We uncertainty age persisting about whether the at which the limita period eighteen twenty-one, or tions tolled became was still justice prospective interests of would be better served Auerbach, application supra, 127 of the decision. N.J. at (citing Accountemps Group, A.2d 1093 Birch Tree 115 N.J. (1989)). Similarly, respect with to the issue of on a claim for whether the statute limitations UIM benefits *10 b.egins to run on the date of the accident or on occasion of a contract, breach of the insurance there has been similar uncertain- noted, ty. unpublished Appellate a recent Division decision As begins run reflects the belief that the statute of limitations to bring to cause of action has accrued and that when the would not occur until the tort recoveries had been exhausted. resolving

Because we are for the first time the date on which run, begins the statute of limitations on claims to it is UM/UIM justice” apply holding prospec the interest of “fairness and to this Auerbach, tively. supra, 127 See N.J. 606 A.2d 1093. The however, prospective ruling apply, only benefit of this shall expired that not six other claims have within months of the date of this decision.

TV given The issue that remains is whether Selective was late policy. Rutgers Casualty notice under the Insurance Co. Vassas, supra, 139 N.J. 652A.2d the claimant’s insurance pending, company never knew that there was a tort case much injuries. personal that less a claim for Here Selective knew there injuries were extensive because there was a contest over PIP accident, paid as a result of the and benefits to Green Selective injuries. fully presume was aware of the extent his We must cursory investigation would have disclosed the limits of liability Tingle’s policy. Appellate

The Division affirmed the trial court’s dismissal on seven-year delay the basis that between date of the accident and Green’s claim Selective UIM benefits unfairly prejudiced subrogation rights. Selective’s result; however, reaching relied on this Vassas Division Vassas distinguishable. ease, Vassas, belatedly policyholder, sought In that provisions his enforce underinsured motorist contained within liability policy. automobile Vassas had been involved in an auto- Void, mobile accident with a vehicle driven Andre an underin- accident, Shortly Rut motorist. after the Vassas notified sured vehicle, Rutgers gers damage of collision to his but never informed personal injury personal claim. then filed a possible of a Vassas injury informing Rutgers. Following action without Void 4:21A-l(a)(l), non-binding under Rule Vassas was arbitration $15,000. awarded, accepted, policy limit of Void’s On Vassas’s award, motion, judgment gave on the and Vassas was entered judgment. a satisfaction of Id. at 652A.2d 162. Void later, asserted, time, first a claim Fifteen months Vassas for the against Rutgers by failing for UIM benefits. We held *11 accident, notify Rutgers years of this claim until three after the judgment, unfairly preju and fifteen months after the had Vassas Rutgers’s subrogation rights against diced the underinsured mo torist, contrary requirements policy. of Id. at the suit, By Rutgers of A.2d 162. the time Vassas notified the Rutgers precluded pursuing subrogation was from a Void, judgment given The released Void. satisfaction Vassas addition, responsible party, any liability. two-year the In the expired. which to statute limitations within sue Void had incurred, prejudice Rutgers Because of the was released of its obligation provisions policy. under the UIM of Vassas’s Ibid. case, Appellate this the Division concluded that because “delay of three from the date of the accident to assertion of prejudice a claim resulted in unfair UIM to the insurance carrier ], here, compelled we are to reach a [in Vassas similar conclusion policyholder delayed years.” the [where] more than seven How- ever, attempted Longworth/Vassas guidelines. Green to follow the In Vassas we said: If a the insured receives settlement offer or arbitration award that does not because the tortfeasor claim, underinsured, the UIM completely satisfy

insurer then offer to has two the insured the amount of the options: pay tortfeasor’s settlement offer or the arbitration the tortfeasor’s award, usually exchange subrogation rights against in limit, for of the insured’s the tortfeasor; or, allow the to settle. In either insurer must further case, allow the coverage. insured the benefit of the UIM 162.] 139 N.J. at 652 A.2d

[Vassas, 174-75, supra, accepted settlement, Green he contacted Selective before and judgment regard Selective told him to exercise own with his accepting it. could paid Selective have Green $2500 and taken subrogation rights fully over the case Galex. Its were short, intact. Although Vassas does not control this case. we asserted, specific no prejudice note that been has other than died, Tingle prejudice has whether Selective has suffered on must account late notice be determined the trial court aon Tingle’s testimony fuller assessment of the record. or his state preserved or ments have been be otherwise available Riccio, any comparative liability. assess See N.J. (explaining assessing of UM role arbitrator fault). comparative judgment Division is reversed and

matter is proceedings remanded to Law Division for further opinion. accordance with this WILENTZ,

For reversal and remandment —Chief Justice HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, and Justices STEIN COLEMAN —7.

Opposed—None.

POLLOCK, J., concurring. *12 Co., Zirger 327, 333, v. General Accident Ins. 144 N.J. 676 1065, (1996), today, A.2d recognizes 1068 also decided the Court that governs disputes contract law the resolution of about UM and coverage. Consequently, UIM a cause of action for UIM benefits contract, does the not accrue until carrier breaches the for exam Altman, ple, by denying the Allstate Ins. v. 200 benefits. Co. 269, 275, 491 N.J.Super. (App.Div.1984). A.2d 59 case, present a recognizing the the contractual nature of claim, majority recovery UIM the asserts that of UIM benefits is 333, recovery “conceptually from in tort.” Ante at 676 different Curiously, however, ignores majority A.2d at 1068. the con the determining claim in event tractual nature of the the that starts 358 Even running of limitations. N.J.S.A. 2A:14r-l.

the of the statute period curiously, majority that the limitations more the concludes accident, implicitly of the a conclusion that runs from the date Yet, majority sounding a as in tort. the recognizes claim UIM the rejects the that an insured’s action proposition the claim the tortfeasor. UIM carrier stems from tort Ibid. say so,

Although majority expressly does it solves the the not apparently that asserting Legislature that the intended riddle the to run the the statute of limitations on contract starts on Significantly, the Ante at A.2d at 1078. date of accident. 676 history statutory language support it cites no its assertion. or Instead, majority simply policy to legislative the refers “ expeditious innocent finan ‘provide protection to the victims of ” cially irresponsible at A.2d at 1078 motorists.’ Ante 676 Houten, (quoting Longworth N.J.Super. 223 538 v. Van (App.Div.1988)). opinion explana 414 Missing A.2d from is an majority protection by measuring furthers tion how accident, than right of to sue from date of the rather claimants from the date denial of benefits. UIM majority’s requirement bring a claimant an action must on a UIM claim within six from the accident date does not law, contrast, Existing protects protect accident victims. case by permitting victims those the assertion UIM claims before Rutgers Casualty tort Ins. Co. the determination of actions. See Vassas, 163, 171, 174, (adopting N.J. Longworth); Longworth, supra, may (stating A.2d 414 that an seek arbitration of UIM action). underlying tort similar benefits before resolution No salutary requiring prema from an effect follows insured to file ture claim benefits. majority opinion

Implicit is an awareness that an insured potential not on the date of the accident that a know at 1078. In tortfeasor underinsured. Ante at A.2d *13 case, hardly right such a it seems fair to the to measure insured’s sue from date. that an timely

Most claimants will have economic incentive to file claims already obligated for UIM benefits. UIM claimants are to notify litigation. “If, ensuing during carriers accidents and of claim, pendency of the the the tortfeasor’s insurance proves satisfy to damages, insufficient the insured’s then the again notify the UIM should insurer that fact.” Vas sas, Additionally, 139 N.J. at 162. A.2d the notify any insured must the UIM insurer of or settlement offer satisfy arbitration that not completely award does the claim Finally, because the tortfeasor is underinsured. Ibid. insurance protect including policies carriers can themselves their time filing law, moreover, existing limits for UIM claims. Under require Thus, to timely present insurers can file claims. insureds law an balances insured’s to file a UIM claim six within years of the insurer’s breach the contract with the correlative duty provide to the insurer with reasonable notification the underlying status of the tort action. That strikes me a fair and as rights respective parties. reasonable accommodation of the of the I Legislature would leave more marked accommodation.

My provide majority, further concern is that the it what claims, perceives practical procedure a more for be has unintentionally consistency practicality. sacrificed doctrinal supports Established contract law the result reached same as that majority, may pursue that Green suit his Selective. Thus, my majority difference with the not the is result but acceptance means it uses reach that result. Public decisions, judiciary depends only judicial not but on results of on Regrettably lacking means courts use to reach those results. majority opinion any from the reason for the result reached majority’s other than to reach result. desire majority I misplaces also believe its reliance on a text, leading Cynthia Craig automobile-insurance M. & Daniel J. Law, 23:3-l(b), Pomeroy, Jersey § New Auto Insurance *14 (1996). analogous majority, a According “[i]n somewhat raise context, Pomeroy claimants must Craig observe that UM & years accident.” of the for arbitration within six their demand however, majority opinion, Ante at A .2d at 1079. paragraph in the next any to the statement omits reference Pomeroy’s Craig treatise: & obligation contractual an insurer for breach of the It is that suit noteworthy brought six of the insurer’s a claim is when within timely to arbitrate UM begin regard, limitation does not In that the six-year period

refusal to arbitrate. rejects claimant’s arbitration demand. run until the insurer the UM 1(b), [Craig § 299.] at & Pomeroy, 23:3— encouraging Pomeroy recognize the benefit of Although Craig & benefits, they recognize that timely also file claims for insureds to that starts the claims is a breach of contract the denial of such N.J.S.A under running six-year statute of limitations 2A:14r-l. propose majority opinion be read to

To the extent that the claim for benefits underlying tort action and the that the ante proceeding, at 676 A .2d at adjudicated in one should be any stage proceedings parties, these no one —not Division, suggested that the Law or the Division—has minimum, parties to comment permit I would proposal. At writing That proposal it into the law of the State. on the before process provide practice parties include the in the would thinking. with the benefit of their Court sum, begin run six-year statute of limitations did not by denying claim for until breached its contract Green’s Selective Thus, February, 1993. That denial occurred UIM benefits. expire he instituted this limitations did not on Green’s before action. joins in this concurrence.

Justice STEIN