## Facts

- An insured was seriously injured in a hit-and-run automobile accident after an unidentified vehicle allegedly forced her off the road.
- The insured was hospitalized for 23 days, including several days in intensive care.
- The automobile policy required (i) notice of a hit-and-run accident within 24 hours to police and the insurer (subject to excuse), and (ii) notice to the insurer “promptly.”
- The insured did not notify the insurer within 24 hours and gave formal uninsured motorist (UM) notice more than four months after the accident.
- After discharge, the insured soon stopped medication, could leave home and communicate normally, and returned to work about three months after the accident.
- The insurer denied the UM claim and later sought a declaratory judgment that it owed no coverage and had no duty to arbitrate, asserting late notice and a limitations defense.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the insured and ordered arbitration; the insurer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the insured’s notice, given months after the accident and after recovery from immediate incapacity, satisfied the policy’s “prompt” notice condition (and any excused delay under the 24-hour hit-and-run notice requirement).
2. Whether the insurer was estopped from asserting late notice because it investigated and communicated with the insured before denying the claim.
3. What statute of limitations applies to an insured’s claim for UM benefits: the three-year tort period or the six-year contract period.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for the insured.
- The court held the insured’s notice was not “prompt” as a matter of law after her incapacity ended; the insurer had no liability under the policy and no obligation to arbitrate the UM claim.
- The court held the insurer was not estopped from raising late notice because there was no inducement and detrimental reliance.
- Although not necessary to the disposition, the court stated that UM benefit claims are governed by the six-year contract statute of limitations rather than the three-year tort statute.

## Legal Principles

- Compliance with insurance policy notice conditions is a prerequisite to coverage; excused noncompliance during incapacity does not eliminate the duty to give notice promptly once the incapacity ends.
- Whether notice is “prompt” may be decided as a matter of law when the material facts show an unreasonable delay after the insured is capable of giving notice.
- Estoppel against an insurer requires conduct that induces the insured to act or refrain from acting, causing detriment; investigation or delayed denial, without inducement affecting the insured’s conduct, is insufficient.
- A claim for uninsured motorist benefits is a contract claim against the insurer; the contract limitations period applies.

## Conclusion

The court held that the insured’s months-long delay in giving notice after recovery from immediate incapacity violated the policy’s “prompt” notice requirement, defeating UM coverage and arbitration, and it rejected estoppel for lack of detrimental reliance while indicating that UM claims are subject to the contract statute of limitations.


Royal-Globe Ins. Co. v. Craven, 411 Mass. 629, 585 N.E.2d 315 (Mass. 1992)