Inception of Loss & Private Limitation of Action Provision

0
4K

A Video Explaining the Application of the Private Limitation of Action Provision

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/inception-loss-private-limitation-action-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and see the full video at https://youtu.be/HCtH573w6D4 and at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921 and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3850 posts. 

The phrase, “inception of the loss” in the standard fire insurance policy has been interpreted to mean “the occurrence of the casualty or event insured against.” [ See e.g., Zuckerman v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 133 Ariz. 139, 650 P. 2d 441 (1982) (Arizona law); Closser v. Penn Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 457 A. 2d 1081 (Del Supr 1983) (Delaware law); Sager Glove Corp. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 317 F. 2d 439 (7th Cir) (Illinois law), cert den 375 U.S. 921 (1963); Gremillion v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 256 La. 974, 240 So. 2d 727 (1970) (Louisiana law); and General State Authority v. Planet Ins. Co., 464 Pa. 162, 346 A. 2d 265 (1975) (Pennsylvania law).]

The Sixth Circuit held that a one-year limitations period after the inception of loss or damage in an insurance contract did not conflict with Kentucky law and was reasonable. [Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 403 F.3d 401, 402-04 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Seneca Specialty Ins. Co. (W.D. Ky., 2019)]

The inception of loss means “the time when the loss was first incurred or began to accrue.” [Tucker v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins., 2002 UT 54, ¶¶ 13-14, 53 P.3d 947].

In 1885, the California Court of Appeal found the one year private limitation to be enforceable unless the plaintiff established that negotiations with the defendant insurer established a waiver or caused the insurer to be estopped from asserting the provision as a defense. [Garido v. American Cent. Ins. Co. of St. Louis, 2 Cal Unrep. 560, 8 P. 512 (1885).] Finding no evidence of waiver or evidence to support estoppel, the defense verdict was affirmed.

In Sarmiento v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company, 106 Ohio St.3d 403, 2005-Ohio-5410 (2005), the court found that a two-year contractual limitation period for filing uninsured- and underinsured-motorist claims is reasonable and enforceable, regardless of whether the foreign state in which the accident occurred provides a longer statute of limitations for the underlying tort claim.
ZALMA OPINION

Every person insured and every lawyer representing a policyholder must undertstand the fact that insurance policies contain private limitation of action provisions and, if there is a dispute, the suit must be filed before the expiration of the private limitation not the state’s statute of limitations.

Sponsored

We are 100% funded for October.

Thanks to everyone who helped out. 🥰

Xephula monthly operating expenses for 2024 - Server: $143/month - Backup Software: $6/month - Object Storage: $6/month - SMTP Service: $10/month - Stripe Processing Fees: ~$10/month - Total: $175/month

Xephula Funding Meter

Please Donate Here

Search
Categories
Read More
Other
Supreme Court of Delaware Reads Policy
Economic Damages not a Risk Insured Against Read the full article at...
By Barry Zalma 2022-01-14 13:28:11 0 4K
Crime
Claims Commandments
Claims Commandment VIII – Thou Shall Not Suffer Fraud to Succeed Read the full article at...
By Barry Zalma 2022-11-10 14:39:35 0 4K
Other
It’s Not Nice to Accuse a Person of Insurance Fraud
It’s Not Nice to Accuse a Person of Insurance Fraud Read the full article at...
By Barry Zalma 2023-09-05 12:59:41 0 4K