United States: Policyholders Need to Be Wary Of Insurer Conduct Leading Them Into Suit Limitation Traps

Last Updated: March 13 2015
Article by Tara C. Kowalski

A recent string of cases from Oregon to Connecticut addressing suit limitation provisions are a reminder of the numerous traps that surround such provisions and how insurer conduct can be misleading in those situations.  Suit limitation provisions are the contractual equivalent of statutes of limitations.  They require policyholders to file coverage lawsuits within a specified period of time or risk forfeiting coverage for the claim at issue.  The most common time period is one or two years – which is often shorter than the otherwise applicable statute of limitations.  Despite the potential for Draconian results, suit limitation provisions are generally enforceable, subject to certain limitations.  And, some jurisdictions don't require a showing of prejudice from the insurer.  Suit limitation provisions are often found in first-party policies and only rarely in liability policies.  Below is a summary of some recent cases addressing suit limitation provisions, as well as some practice pointers based on the rulings in those cases.

Connecticut Court Enforces Suit Limitation Provision, Despite Testimony of Insurer Misrepresentations Regarding Limitations Period

In Bell v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, No. HHDCV126028741S, 2014 Conn. Super LEXIS 2502 (Oct. 7, 2014), a Connecticut court enforced a suit limitation provision, despite testimony from the policyholder's counsel that the insurance adjuster misrepresented the suit limitation period and led her to believe that the claim would be settled before the limitations period had run.  In Bell, the policy at issue contained a 180 day suit limitation period.  Over the course of several months, the insurance adjuster exchanged intermittent communications with the policyholder, including requests for information.  Over the next few months, the policyholder's counsel left several unreturned messages for the adjuster.  Approximately two months after the suit limitation deadline had run, the insurer advised the policyholder that a new adjuster had been assigned to the file.  Then, another two months later, the new adjuster advised that the suit limitation period had run.  That same day, the policyholder's counsel wrote a memo to the client file stating that the prior adjuster told her that the suit limitation period was one year (not 180 days) and that the claim would settle before then.

Although the suit limitation period had run, the policyholder filed a coverage action.  The insurer moved for summary judgment based on the suit limitation provision.  The Court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on the ground that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding waiver and estoppel.  However, a bench trial on those issues resulted in a judgment in favor of the insurer.

The Court found that there was no express waiver because the adjuster's testimony was more credible than the attorney's testimony regarding whether the adjuster misrepresented the length of the limitations period.  The Court reasoned that the attorney did not have any credible corroborating evidence for her alleged conversation – she did not follow up with a confirming letter or write a contemporaneous memo to file.  Instead, she waited until after the limitations period had run to document her alleged conversations.  In contrast, the insurer had a sophisticated system for documenting claim communications, including a requirement that adjusters contemporaneously document every telephone conversation in an electronic claim file, which cannot be edited or deleted.  The Court found it convincing that the insurer's claim file did not include any reference to the alleged discussion regarding the applicable time period.

The Court also rejected the policyholder's claims for implied waiver and estoppel.  With respect to implied waiver, the Court reasoned that the insurer's "conduct in collecting information about the claim does not provide evidence of an intentional relinquishment of a known right."  With respect to estoppel, the Court under the particular facts before it found that "[t]his was not a case where the defendant lulled the plaintiff into a false sense of security, but was instead a situation where the plaintiff slept on her rights."  The Court further suggested that it was not reasonable for the attorney to rely on her belief that the adjuster indicated that the limitations period was one year.  Although the policyholder attorney requested a copy of the policy, she apparently never followed up to obtain an actual copy of the policy to confirm the applicable limitations period.

 Nevada Court Confirms That Suit Limitation Provisions Do Not Apply to Bad Faith and Unfair Claim Practice Act Claims and Addresses Trigger Date for Calculating Suit Limitation Period

In Queensridge Towers, LLC v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co., No. 2:13-CV-197, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177433 (D. Nev. Dec. 24, 2014), the policyholder sought coverage for scratches on the windows of a large condominium development.  The policy at issue required lawsuits against the insurer to be commenced within twelve months of discovery of the loss.  Under Nevada law, the limitations period was tolled between the date the insurer received notice of the damage and the date the insurer denied the claim.

The policyholder filed a coverage lawsuit two days before the one year anniversary of the insurer's denial.  However, the policyholder admitted that it was aware of some window scratches several months before the tolling of the limitations period.  The insurer argued that the lawsuit was filed outside the limitations period because the time period before and after the tolling amounted to more than twelve months.  The policyholder argued that the pre-tolling time should not be included in the calculation because the "full extent" of the window scratches was not discovered until after the limitations period had been tolled.  The Court rejected this argument and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer barring the policyholder's breach of contract claim.  The Court reasoned that under the policyholder's theory, a claimant could wait years to bring a claim and the insurer "could remain liable despite having had an inadequate opportunity to timely investigate the damage and its causes."

Importantly, the Court did not apply the suit limitation provision to the policyholder's bad faith and Unfair Claims Practices Act ("UCPA") claims.  Rather, the Court confirmed that "a common law bad faith claim is not subject to the limitations provision" because the duty of good faith "is an obligation imposed by law, it does not arise from the terms of the insurance contract."  The Court also confirmed that the policyholder's UCPA claims were governed by the applicable statute of limitations, not the shorter suit limitations provision.

Ohio Court Addresses Interplay Between Conflicting Suit Limitation Provisions in Main Insuring Document and Endorsement

More recently, an Ohio Court of Appeals held that a suit limitation provision in an endorsement that conflicted with the suit limitation provision in the main insuring document was not ambiguous.  In Scarberry v. Western Reserve Group, No. 14CA6, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 215 (Jan. 20, 2015), the policyholder was issued a policy that included a one year suit limitation provision in the main insuring document.  The renewal policy changed the suit limitation period to two years in the main insuring document, but retained the one year suit limitation period via an endorsement.  The renewal policy was accompanied by a summary of the changes, which did not mention these amendments.

The Court rejected the policyholder's arguments that the one year suit limitation provision in the endorsement was ambiguous because it contradicted the main insuring document and was not included in the summary of changes.  The Court reasoned that: (1) the endorsement unequivocally stated that it replaced the suit limitation provision in the main agreement; (2) the Declarations page referenced the endorsement; and (3) there was no substantive change to the suit limitations provision because it was merely moved from the main insuring document to the endorsement.  The Court noted that the policyholder was represented by counsel during the claim process and an agreement between the insurer and the policyholder to extend the one year limitations period by an additional six months demonstrated that the policyholder had actual notice of the one year limitation period before it had run.  It is not clear whether the Court would have reached the same conclusion if the policyholder had not been represented by counsel and/or did not enter into an agreement to extend the limitations period.

Oregon Court Applying Washington Law Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Questions of Fact Regarding Equitable Estoppel

Some other recent cases addressing suit limitation provisions have been more favorable to policyholders.  For example, in Semeryanov v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., No. 3:14-cv-00313, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170632 (D. Oregon Dec. 9, 2014), the policyholders filed a lawsuit against their insurer nearly one year after the suit limitation deadline.  The insurer moved for summary judgment based on the suit limitation provision.  The policyholders argued that equity excused strict compliance with the deadline because the insurer continued to investigate the claim and communicate with the policyholders regarding the claim after the deadline and did not deny the claim until nearly a year after the deadline.

In some jurisdictions, suit limitation deadlines are automatically tolled from the date the policyholder makes a claim until the date the insurer denies the claim (as demonstrated in Queensridge Towers, applying Nevada law, above).  However, the dispute in Semeryanov was governed by Washington law, which has not yet adopted an automatic tolling rule.  Instead, Washington courts apply equitable estoppel to suit limitation provisions.

Relying on those cases, the court in Semeryanov denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on the ground that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the insurer's conduct "logically excused" the policyholders from complying with the suit limitation provision.  The Court reasoned that the insurer's continuing investigation and communication with the policyholders regarding the status of their claim well after the suit limitation deadline "reasonably led [the policyholders] to believe that [the insurer] would continue to investigate [the policyholder's] claim and continue to work towards settlement, without necessarily requiring [the policyholders] to file suit before the process had run its course."  If this case ultimately proceeds to trial, the outcome may be instructive on these issues, especially when compared to the findings in Bell, discussed above.

Take Away Practice Points

These cases serve as a reminder for policyholders to tread carefully when dealing with suit limitation provisions.  Here are a few practice pointers that can help reduce the risk of missing a suit limitation deadline:

  •      Always obtain a copy of the actual policy at issue.  Never rely on an insurer's representations regarding the policy terms alone.
  •     Read the entire policy carefully, including the Declarations page, the main insuring document and the endorsements.
  •    Familiarize yourself with whether or not the applicable jurisdiction has any automatic tolling rules. Do not just assume that any time period will automatically be tolled.
  •      Identify any suit limitation deadline and confirm the deadline with the insurer in writing (particularly if it is potentially unclear).
  •      Do not assume based on an insurer's conduct that it does not intend to enforce a suit limitation provision.  If the suit limitation deadline is approaching while the insurer is still investigating the claim, either obtain a tolling agreement from the insurer or plan to file a lawsuit before the deadline to preserve the claim.
  •      Always confirm important conversations and/or agreements with insurers regarding suit limitation deadlines in writing via confirming letters and/or formal agreements.
  •      If a contract claim is already barred by a suit limitation provision, consider whether the policyholder may still have any bad faith and/or Unfair Claims Practices Act claims, which may not be subject to the same suit limitation provision in the policy.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Emails

From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.