One Year Suit Limitation Clause Barred Insured's Action Against Insurer, 9th Circuit Rules
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a homeowners' insurance policy's one year suit limitation provision prevented homeowners from recovering under their policy.
April 18, 2019 at 02:39 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This story is reprinted with permission from the Insurance Coverage Law Center, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California holding that a homeowners' insurance policy's one-year suit-limitation provision prevented homeowners from recovering under their policy.
The Case
Around November or December 2012, Jacqueline Keller and Phillip Yaney noticed “warping” or “cupping” in portions of their newly installed hardwood floors after a backup of water and sewage in the downstairs bathroom flooded portions of their Beverly Hills home.
By June or July 2013, Ms. Keller and Mr. Yaney determined that the cupping was not subsiding and that it would not be resolved on its own. On September 15, 2014, they notified Federal Insurance Company, from which they had purchased a homeowners' insurance policy, of the sewage backup and damage to their floors.
Federal denied coverage, and Ms. Keller and Mr. Yaney sued on December 10, 2015.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Federal, and Ms. Keller and Mr. Yaney appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Federal Policy
The Federal policy's “Legal Action Against Us” (“LAAU”) clause provided:
[Y]ou . . . agree to bring any action against us within one year after a loss occurs. . . .
The Ninth Circuit's Decision
The circuit court affirmed.
In its decision, the Ninth Circuit explained that the LAAU clause established a one year suit limitation period beginning “after a loss occurs.”
It then decided that Ms. Keller and Mr. Yaney failed to comply with the provision “because they filed their claim over one year after the loss occurred.”
The circuit court explained that their loss occurred in November or December 2012, when Ms. Keller and Mr. Yaney noticed the cupping of their floors.
The Ninth Circuit said that even if it assumed that the loss did not occur until July 2013, when Ms. Keller and Mr. Yaney decided that the cupping issue would not resolve itself over time, they still were late in submitting their claim to Federal in September 2014.
The circuit court conceded that the limitations period was tolled while Federal was evaluating their claim between September 2014 and December 2015, but it ruled that the December 10, 2015 complaint still was time-barred by the LAAU's suit-limitation provision because Ms. Keller and Mr. Yaney waited over a year after the loss occurred before even filing their claim with Federal.
The Ninth Circuit rejected the argument by Ms. Keller and Mr. Yaney that their complaint should be deemed timely because Federal failed to show that it had been prejudiced by their delay in filing their claim. The circuit court reasoned that Federal did not deny coverage based on lack of notification but based on the one year suit limitation provision in the LAAU clause – and as a result Federal did not have to show that it had suffered any prejudice.
The case is Keller v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 17-55323 (9th Cir. April 1, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For JACQUELINE KELLER, PHILLIP YANEY, Plaintiffs – Appellants: Jacob N. Segura, Attorney, JACOB N. SEGURA LAW OFFICES, Los Angeles, CA. For FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, CHUBB INA HOLDINGS, INC., as successor-in-interest to The Chubb Corporation erroneously sued as Chubb Corporation, AKA Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, Defendants – Appellees: Mary McPherson, Esquire, TRESSLER LLP, Irvine, CA; Bradley N. Garcia, Jonathan Hacker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC.
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. Mr. Meyerowitz is the Director of the Insurance Coverage Law Center and editor-in-chief of journals on insurance law, banking law, bankruptcy law, energy law, government contracting law, and privacy and cybersecurity law, among other subjects. He may be contacted at smeyerowitz@
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Wake Up Call to the Life Insurance Industry:' California Sues Insurers
3 minute readFederal Judge Sides With Lyft Driver in Contractual Dispute Over $1M Uninsured Motorist Coverage
5 minute readFormer CVS Exec Faces Trade Secrets Suit for Allegedly Helping Chickasaw Nation Case
3 minute readFacing a Shrinking Talent Pool, Insurance Defense Firms Are Fighting to Add Attorneys
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250