Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals has upheld Erie Insurance’s three-year deadline for underinsured motorist claims, reinforcing the power of clear policy language.
The case, decided on Sept. 23, centered on a dispute between David Anand and Erie Insurance Company after Anand was rear-ended by Ashley Jones on Sawmill Road in Franklin County, Ohio, on Jan. 31, 2019. Anand claimed personal injuries and property damage from the accident. He filed a lawsuit against Jones and a Jane Doe in January 2021, later amending his complaint to add more details about his injuries and damages. At that stage, Anand did not include a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits.
It was not until May 2022 that Anand sought to amend his complaint again to add Erie Insurance Company as a defendant, asserting that Jones was underinsured and that his Erie policy should provide additional coverage.
Erie Insurance moved for summary judgment, citing a specific endorsement in Anand’s policy. The endorsement required that any claim or lawsuit for UIM coverage be made within three years of the accident. Erie argued Anand’s claim was untimely, and the trial court agreed, granting summary judgment in Erie’s favor.
Anand appealed, arguing that the three-year limitation was unreasonable and ambiguous. He also contended that his oral notice to his Erie agent in December 2021 should satisfy the policy’s notice requirement.
The appellate court rejected these arguments. The judges found that the UIM endorsement in Anand’s policy was clear and unambiguous, and that it expressly replaced any conflicting general policy provisions. The court also held that Anand’s oral notice did not meet the policy’s requirement for written notice, and that he did not provide Erie with suit papers within the required period.
Ultimately, the court concluded that Anand failed to comply with the policy’s contractual requirements for bringing a UIM claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of Erie Insurance Company.
For insurance professionals, this case underscores the importance of clear policy language and strict adherence to contractual deadlines. The decision serves as a reminder that courts will enforce explicit policy terms, and that informal or oral notice will not substitute for the written notice required by insurance contracts.
