Utah Supreme Court

Dee Voy Tucker and Marian Tucker

June 11, 2002449 Utah Adv. Rep. 9

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment for State Farm because the Tuckers' claims were barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations. It held that a statute-of-limitations defense may be raised through a motion to dismiss when the relevant facts appear in the pleadings, or when the motion is converted to summary judgment and the parties receive a reasonable opportunity to present pertinent materials. The court further held that all claims arising from the Tuckers' first-party PIP relationship were contractual and accrued no later than State Farm's partial reimbursement and refusal to pay additional expenses in November 1996.

Holding

  • Use of a motion to dismiss to raise the statute of limitations. A statute-of-limitations defense may be raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when the facts establishing the defense appear on the face of the complaint. When the complaint describes the accrual-triggering events but omits the relevant date, the court may convert the motion to summary judgment, provided the parties receive a reasonable opportunity to present pertinent materials. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by doing so, and the conversion cured the procedural defect.
  • Characterization of the Tuckers' insurance claims. The Tuckers' claims arose from a first-party insurance relationship and were contractual in nature. The three-year statute of limitations governing actions on written contracts of first-party insurance was therefore the exclusive limitations period applicable to all of their claims, including claims characterized as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Accrual and tolling of the limitations period. The Tuckers' loss accrued no later than November 1996, when State Farm partially reimbursed their expenses and notified them that it would not pay the disputed expenses absent additional medical documentation. The September 12, 2000 amended complaint was filed more than three years later and was untimely. State Farm's willingness to consider additional information did not constitute an agreement to toll the limitations period.

Docket 20010228

Cited authorities

  • rule 12(b)(6)
  • Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
  • rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure
  • rule 12(b)(6)
  • rule 12(b)(6)
  • rule 12(b)(6)
  • rule 12(b)(6)
  • Rule 56 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF