To Whom the Contractual Suit Limitation Period Tolls

To Whom the Contractual Suit Limitation Period Tolls

To Whom the Contractual Suit Limitation Period Tolls

Virginia’s Top Court lately addressed a problem of statutory interpretation that affects whether or under what conditions a contractual suit limitation provision within an insurance plan might be tolled. In Allstate Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ploutis, a legal court reviewed a coverage action filed against a homeowner’s carrier with a homeowner whose home and certain contents were broken after water pipes burst on March 19, 2010. As the insurer provided a preliminary payment, the parties couldn’t agree with the price of remaining repairs. The property owner ultimately sued on March 16, 2012, alleging breach of contract. For reasons not discussed within the opinion, “[u]pon the request of [the complaintant homeowner], a purchase of nonsuit was joined on Feb 22, 2013.” The complaintant homeowner then re-filed the experience on August 21, 2013, greater than 2 yrs following the loss.

The trial court joined an addendum towards the order of nonsuit supplying that “the current action is ‘merely an abatement from the original action, and also the second filing is really a reinstatement from the original action’” and therefore, “‘the present action remains the original action introduced inside the 2 year [contractual] limitation period.’” This known the topic insurance policy’s contractual suit limitation provision, that is typically standard inside a fire policy.

Actually, a legal court noted that the Virginia statute requires certain standard language in most fire policies, together with a provision that “no suit or action about this insurance policy for the recovery associated with a claim will be sustainable in almost any court or equity … unless of course commenced within 2 yrs next after beginning from the loss.” The insurance policy at issue contained an identical, although not identical, provision, proclaiming that “no you can bring an undertaking against us by any means associated with the existence or quantity of coverage … unless of course … the experience is commenced within 2 yrs following the beginning of loss or damage.”

A legal court also noted that another Virginia statute provides, “if a complaintant suffers a voluntary nonsuit … the time limit regarding such action will be tolled through the commencement from the nonsuited action, and also the complaintant may recommence his action within six several weeks.” Counting on this statute, the property owner contended, and also the trial court agreed, the policy’s suit limitation provision-that was mandated by statute-was therefore tolled.

The Virginia Top Court reversed in support of the insurer, discovering that as the “statute of limitations” might have been tolled-within this situation, 5-year time limit for getting an undertaking on the contract- nonetheless, a contractual suit limitation provision isn’t a “statute of limitations” nor may be the code section mandating that fire policies contain this type of provision. Thus, since the new suit was introduced greater than 2 yrs after beginning from the loss, our prime court held the action was barred through the the parties’ contract, and reversed and joined judgment in support of the defendant insurer.



Related Posts
Comment ( 1 )
  1. SuperBojangs
    October 30, 2016 at 3:32 am

    Magicka is def one of my favorite games, though I haven&1quo;t played it in a while.nI think the article should have also mentioned their success with Magicka after their tribulatio1. It seems so natural since the article talks about how they started to lose faith in the project. Magicka did pretty well , didn&1quo;t it?

Leave a reply