We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the one-year time-to-sue clause in the parties’ insurance policy was not tolled for at least 60 days after Lagrande Thornton submitted a proof of loss, which is the minimum period the policy gave to Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company GFB to pay after receiving proof of loss. See Thornton v. Georgia Farm Bureau Ins. Co. , 297 Ga. App. 132 676 SE2d 814 2009. This is a case of straightforward contract interpretation, and we affirm. Thornton, whose home was destroyed by fire on February 28, 2006, had a homeowner’s insurance policy with GFB. A clause in the policy entitled “Suit Against Us” provides that “no action can be brought unless the policy provisions have been complied with and the action is started one year after the date of the loss.” Another clause entitled “Loss Payment” provides that “loss will be payable 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and: a. reach an agreement with you; b. there is an entry of a final judgment; or c. there is a filing of an appraisal award.”
GFB was notified of the fire the day it occurred. On March 2, 2006, GFB wrote to Thornton discussing his duties under the policy, including his duty to submit a proof of loss, and explaining that the “Suit Against Us” provision of the policy required that he bring an action within one year of the date of the loss. On March 10, 2006, Thornton submitted a proof of loss. On October 30, 2006, following an extensive investigation and many communications about the claim between Thornton and GFB, GFB notified Thornton that it was denying coverage under the policy based on its determination that Thornton was responsible for the fire and had misrepresented material facts. Thornton did not file suit against GFB until March 15, 2007, which was a year and 15 days after the date of the loss.