David, J.
This matter involves the interpretation of an automobile insurance policy in the context of a personal injury lawsuit involving an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim. The policy at issue requires that a UIM claim be brought within three (3) years of the accident and also requires that the insured filly comply with all provisions of the policy prior to bringing suit. One such provision is that State Farm will only pay if the underinsured motorist’s insurance has been exhausted. Because the provision requiring an insured to bring suit within three (3) years is in direct conflict with the policy’s exhaustion requirement, we hold that the policy is ambiguous and thus, must be construed in favor of the insured. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of State Farm’s motion for summary judgment.
….
Jakubowicz’s State Farm policy is substantially similar to the policy in m. Like the policy in m, Jakubowicz’s policy is ambiguous to extent that it contains conflicting provisions. As the trial court observed, the policy could have just stated that suit must be brought within three (3) years. The policy also could have called for exhaustion of the policy limits prior to filing a UIM claim against State Farm Without a limitation on the time to do so. Instead, the policy contained a limitation period as well as additional conditions. Those conditions— that “[l]egal action may not be brought against us until there has been full compliance with all the provisions of this policy” and “[w]e will pay only if the full amount of all available limits of all bodily injury liability bonds, policies, and self-insurance plans that apply to the insured’s bodily injury have been used up by payment of judgments or settlements, or have been offered to the insured in writing” conflict with the three (3) year limitation period. (Appellant’s App. at 177, 159.)
As State Farm observed, the insured has no control over Whether or when the tortfeasor offers policy limits. Thus, there are situations, like in this case, where the insured cannot both exhaust the tonfeasor’s policy limits and file a UIM suit within the three (3) year limitation period. Ambiguous insurance policies are construed against the insurer. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of State Farm’s motion for summary judgment and remand the matter for filrther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Rush, C.J., Rucker, Massa and Slaughter, J.., concur.