... add up to summary judgment for a homeowner's carrier. But actually either of the policyholder's violations of the insurance contract would have sufficed in this Connecticut case.
In Discuillo v. Allstate Ins. Co., NO. 3:17-CV-234 (KAD), 2019 WL 499255 (D. Conn. February 8, 2019), a Connecticut homeowner sustained her alleged loss in February 2015.
She advised her homeowner's insurance carrier of the loss fourteen months later, in April 2016.
She filed suit after the 18 months limitations period provided in her homeowner's policy, in January 2017.
The Federal Judge took the easy question first and entered summary judgment for the carrier because the contractual limitations period had clearly been violated in this case. Discuillo v. Allstate Ins. Co., NO. 3:17-CV-234 (KAD), 2019 WL 499255, at *2 (D. Conn. February 8, 2019).
Then the Federal Judge addressed the lack of "prompt notice" issue. This was a little more difficult to deal with because after all, what is "prompt notice" of a loss under a homeowner's policy can be subject to interpretation. In this case, notice was clearly delayed for 14 months. The undisputed lack of "prompt notice" clearly prejudiced the carrier in this case because it was also undisputed that it was deprived of an adequate opportunity to inspect the property so as to determine the cause of the loss by the time notice was given. The Federal Judge entered summary judgment against the policyholder on this additional ground as well. Discuillo v. Allstate Ins. Co., NO. 3:17-CV-234 (KAD), 2019 WL 499255, at *3-*4 (D. Conn. February 8, 2019).
Suit limitations provisions tend to be applied more often in the decided case law than "prompt notice" policy provisions. But in some cases either provision will suffice to adjudicate a coverage claim without needing to reach the substance of the claim.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments