Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii | February 25, 2019
The policy’s one year suit limitation provision was upheld, depriving insureds of benefits under the policy. Oswald v. South Central Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1077 (Dec. 24, 2018).
The Oswalds’ hog barn burned down on June 21, 2016. Arson was a possible cause.
The Oswalds were insured under a combination policy issued by North Star Mutual Insurance Company and South Central Mutual Insurance Company. Central provided coverage for basic perils, broad perils, and limited perils, which included fire losses. The Central policy required property claims to be brought within one year after the loss. By endorsement, the North Star policy required suits be brought within two years after the loss. Presumably, the claims was denied, although the decision does not state this.
During the investigation of the cause of the fire, the Oswalds attempted to serve a complaint on Central on June 1, 2017, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. The Oswalds failed to properly serve Central and moved to dismiss their complaint without prejudice. The dismissal was granted. The Oswalds then filed an almost identical complaint on September 25, 2017, and properly served the complaint. Central file a motion to dismiss because the suit was filed past the one-year limitation contained in the policy. The motion was granted.
On appeal, the court found the one-year limitation was not inherently unreasonable. While investigating the cause of the fire, the Oswalds still managed to file a complaint before the one-year deadline. Had the Oswalds properly served Central, they would have commenced a suit regarding their current claims within the one-year limitations period. Nor was there any statute prohibiting the one-year limitation period.
The Oswalds also argued that the policy was ambiguous. The policy continuously referred to the two insurance companies as “we” or “us” instead of including a clear delineation between the two companies. But the policy also clarified that all its terms “applied to both companies listed on the declarations unless otherwise designated.”
The Oswalds contended that the policy did not provide a clear and unambiguous limitations period. However, the one-year limitation was clearly stated within the policy conditions.
Finally, the one-year limitation was not tolled due to either fraudulent concealment or equitable principles. The Oswalds failed to identify an affirmative statement which concealed a fact, defeating their argument for tolling the one-year limitation due to fraudulent concealment. Equitable tolling was inappropriate when there were no circumstances beyond the plaintiffs’ control that prevented service of a complaint within the limitations period. Here, the Oswalds attempted to commence a suite within the one-year limit, but failed for reasons within their control. Thus, equitable tolling was inappropriate.
Consequently, the lower court’s dismissal was affirmed.