That is not the basis on which the cases should be distinguished. The appropriate distinction is found in Nelson v. State Farm Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 770 (Minn.App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1997).
In an action to imply uninsured motorist benefits in an insurance policy and to recover those benefits, "the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the auto accident causing the injury." Id. at 441; Nelson v. State Farm Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 770, 771 (Minn.App. 1997). oThis court acknowledges a narrow exception to the general rule in O'Neill by recognizing a party's right to contract specifically for an accrual date other than the date on which the accident occurred.
The same date applies to cases where UIM benefits are specifically provided by contract. Weeks v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 580 N.W.2d 24, 26 (Minn. 1998) (holding that O'Neill is not limited to implied-at-law coverage); Nelson v. State Farm Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 770, 771 (Minn.App 1997) (stating that in "determining when the statute of limitations begins to run, we can discern no reason for distinguishing cases in which UIM coverage is implied from those in which such coverage is provided by contract"), review denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1997).
This court has since limited Sargent's application and held that "[a]bsent a `no coverage until clause' like that in Sargent, there is no `contractual accrual date' for this court to adopt." Nelson v.State Farm Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn.App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1997); see also Cattnach v. State Farm Ins. Co., 577 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Minn.App. 1998) (stating Sargent's application limited to policy language similar to policy language in Sargent), reviewdenied (Minn.
A recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision concluded that the same accrual date applies to uninsured motorist (UM) and UIM claims that are specified by contract. Weeks v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 580 N.W.2d 24, 26-27 (Minn. 1998); see also Nelson v. State Farm Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 770, 771 (Minn.App. 1997) (declining to distinguish cases in which UIM coverage is implied from those in which coverage is provided by contract), review denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1997).
Sargent v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 486 N.W.2d 14, 16 (Minn.App. 1992). See, also, Cattnach v. State Farm Ins. Co., 577 N.W.2d 251 (Minn.App. 1998); Nelson v. State Farm Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 770 (Minn.App. 1997). In urging that we hold that the underinsured motorist claim accrued on the date of the underlying tort, EMC argues that "[a]n insured should not be able to unreasonably delay or indefinitely postpone the operation of the statute of limitations by failing to make a demand for payment."