Absent Evidence Supporting Estoppel Argument, Plaintiffs' Suit Against Homeowner's Insurer Dismissed as Having Not Been Timely Commenced Within Two Years of Loss Date

PROPERTY – HOMEOWNERS – TWO-YEAR CONTRACTUAL SUIT LIMITATIONS PERIOD
Snyder v. Allstate Ins. Co.
(2nd Dept., decided 2/2/2010)

Nothing particularly new in this decision, but the Second Department reiterates that a homeowner's insurance policy's two-year suit limitation period is enforceable and supports the dismissal of an action commenced more than two years after the loss date absent evidence that the insurer either (1) engaged in a course of conduct which lulled the insureds into inactivity in the belief that their claim would ultimately be processed or (2) induced the insureds by fraud, misrepresentation or deception to refrain from commencing a timely action:

Here, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion conclusively established that the instant action was barred because it was commenced after the two-year limitation period contained in the subject insurance policy had expired (see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967-968; Neary v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 17 AD3d 331). Thereupon, "the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to aver evidentiary facts establishing that the case at hand falls within [an exception to the limitations period]" (Minichello v Northern Assur. Co. of Am., 304 AD2d 731, 732). Exceptions exist where a defendant insurer has "engaged in a course of conduct which lulled [the plaintiffs] into inactivity in the belief that their claim would ultimately be processed" or has induced the plaintiffs "by fraud, misrepresentation or deception to refrain from commencing a timely action" (Minichello v Northern Assur. Co. of Am., 304 AD2d at 732 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d at 967-968; Neary v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins., Co., 17 AD3d 331). 

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any basis for estopping the defendant from relying upon the contractual limitations period. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint (see Dimmick v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 57 AD3d 602, 603; Minichello v Northern Assur. Co. of Am., 304 AD2d 731).