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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT