ILNews

Insurance policy’s one-year limitation period voided

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.’s claim that if it’s one-year limitation on bringing an action against the insurer is unenforceable then the court should find a two-year limitation period applies based on Indiana statute.

In State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Riddell National Bank, 61A01-1204-PL-159, Riddell National Bank sought to file a claim in December 2009 with State Farm after discovering extensive damage in June 2009 to a home previously owned by a couple who held a mortgage through the bank. The couple executed a deed in lieu of foreclosure to Riddell in November 2009 after moving out of the property in August 2008. State Farm denied the claim and Riddell brought suit in September 2011.

State Farm moved to dismiss because Riddell’s claim was time barred based on the policy issued to the couple in 2009 that said: “No action shall be brought unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions. The action must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage.” The trial court denied its motion to dismiss.

The Court of Appeals found, and the insurer conceded, that the parties’ policy requiring an action brought within one year is unenforceable pursuant to Indiana Code 27-1-13-17(b). That statute says an insurance policy may not limit the right to bring an action against an insurer to a period of less than two years from the date of loss.

State Farm argued then that the two-year limitation period mentioned in the statute should apply. But I.C. 27-1-13-17 does not provide a two-year default statute of limitations, Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote.

“It merely provides that an insurance policy requiring the filing of a claim in a time period less than two years is void. Indiana Code section 34-11-2-11, on the other hand, does provide a default statute of limitations period, and pursuant to the conformity with state law term in the policy, that default applies to the parties,” she continued, pointing out that statute provides a 10-year statute of limitations.

Under the 10-year statute of limitations, the bank’s claim was timely.  




 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  2. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  3. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  4. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  5. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

ADVERTISEMENT