The law protects the diligent and ignores those who are deceived in the exercise of their rights. Insurance policies, including the mandatory standard fire insurance, include a private limitation of measures to protect insurers against common requirements and prevent fraud.
Jacqueline Keller; Phillip Yaney v Federal Insurance Company, a company; et al. No. 17-55323, DC No. 2: 16-cv-03946-GW-PJW United States Ninth Circuit Appeal Court (April 1, 2019) Jacqueline Keller and Phillip Yaney attempted to recover under a homeowner's insurance policy issued by the Federal Insurance Company ( Federal), even though more than one year had elapsed before the notification was made and much longer before the application suit.
A back-up of water and sewerage downstairs bathroom flooded parts of Keller and Yaney's Beverly Hills home and damaged parts of their newly installed hardwood floors. In this case, it is a question of whether a clause in the policy that prescribes one year's limitation limits them from recovering according to the policy.
The policy has a legal action clause against us (LAAU), which reads as follows: "You agree not to bring an action against us unless you have first complied with all the terms of this policy. For property you also agree to take any action against us within one year after a loss occurs, but not until 30 days after evidence of loss has been provided to us and the amount of loss has been determined. "
Around November or December 201
The ninth cycle concluded that the LAAU clause established both conditions of occurrence and was established a year's day limitation which begins "after a loss occurs". The conditions of occurrence and time limitation are different parts of the clause, and each one was given effect.
Kelley and Yaney's interpretation of the clause – which it does not create a daily limitation period at all or, secondly, that the time limitation period is triggered only after an application has been filed and federal makes its final determination regarding the amount of the insured's claim is inconsistent with the clear language that the time limit period begins "after a loss occurs". Their reading is also incompatible with the purpose of the limitation period, which is to exclude countless claims, demand the insured's care, and prevent fraud. [ Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins. v. the Supreme Court 798 P.2d 1230, 1235-36 (Cal. 1990)]
Keller and Yaney failed to follow the annual limitation clause in the LAAU clause for claiming over a year after the loss occurred. The loss in this case occurred in November or December 2012, when Keller and Yaney noticed the hump of their floors. And although we would assume that the loss did not occur until July 2013, when Keller and Yaney decided that the cupping issue would not settle over time, they were still late to file their claims on Federal in September 2014.
The limitation period was likely to be offended while Federal evaluated Keller and Yaney's claim between September 2014 and December 2015. However, the complaint on December 10, 2015 was still blocked by LAAU's limitation clause since Keller and Yaney waited over a year after the loss occurred before they even left their claims at federal.
Keller and Yaney try to avoid this result by arguing that either the security halt or legal blockage hinders Federal interpretation of the LAAU clause. But it is also not relevant to ensure estoppel or judicial estoppel in the present case. In addition, Federal has not taken a clear inconsistent position.
Fair dissolution and cancellation are also not applicable in the present case. "[C] is overridden by the insurer after the limitation period has expired, such as not specifying the limitation clause when denying the claim, failure to give the policyholder advice on the existence of the limitation clause or not specifically invoking the time field as a defense – cannot as a legal issue constitute a Suspension or Mutual. " Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins ., 798 P.2d at 1240 n.5. All the alleged statements by Jeffrey Gesell, the Federal Coverage Council, were made in 2015, long after the time limits had expired. Thus, the Court has not abused its discretionary discretion by concluding that Gesell's statements did not give rise to any exemption or justification by Federal.
Finally, Keller and Yaney claim that the federal government did not show that they acted with unnecessary delay or that the League was harmed by their delay in filing the claim. However, Keller and Yaney's confidence in the notification clause of the policy is disadvantaged, as Federal did not deny coverage due to lack of notification. Instead, it denied coverage on the basis of a one-year limitation on passenger restrictions in the LAAU clause. As the Court held, the notification and restriction provisions are separate and different policy conditions. The notification provision is irrelevant to the question of whether the limitation period had expired.
Consequently, the ninth circuit found that the court did not commit that the federal did not have to show that Keller and Yaney acted with unnecessary delay in filing their lawsuits or that the federal had suffered any prejudice because of that delay. It was sufficient that the LAAU clause was broken and the plaintiffs failed to comply with the precedent of the condition.
Even the ninth circuit, on April Fools Day, can reach a correct result and maintain more than a century precedent. Since the first New York Standard Fire Insurance Policy was adopted more than a century ago, the LAAU clause has been a condition of the right to compensation under an insurance policy for the first party's property. Keller and Yaney failed to fulfill their obligations under the policy. Federal rejected his claim correctly, as it was time-limited by the clear and unambiguous language of LAAU.
© 2019 – Barry Zalma
This article and all the blog posts on this site melt and summarize cases published by the courts of the various states and the United States. The court decisions have been modified from the actual language of the court decisions, condensed to facilitate reading and convey the author's views in each individual case.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance management, bad faith assurance, and insurance fraud nearly equal for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance cover and law firm and more than 50 years in the insurance industry. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and email@example.com.
Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual liability magazine / ACE Legend Award.
Over the past 51 years, Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurers and their claimants to become insurance managers.
Easter is one of the many holidays that Jewish people celebrate to help them remember G_d's importance in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, mountains, the rain, the sun, the planets, the stars and the people and wondering how all these wonderful things came about?
All Jewish fathers are obliged to teach their children, at least once a year at the Easter weekend, about the exodus from slavery in Egypt. For American Jews who have difficulty understanding Hebrew and complicated books describing Exodus, my wife and I wrote this book to use for our own Seder where every family member reads a portion of the book.
Available as a Kindle book or a paperback here.