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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions