No UM/UIM Coverage Supports Denial & Starts Running of Limitations
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sloth-litigation-fatal-case-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and see the full video at https://rumble.com/v1p2adq-sloth-in-litigation-fatal-to-case.html and at
and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4350 posts.
In Glenna L. Novak And Estate Of Jeffery Leonard Novak, A/K/A Estate Of Jeffery L. Novak By And Through Glenna L. Novak, Executrix v. Mutual Benefit Insurance Company, No. 1592 MDA 2021, No. J-S23016-22, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (October 14, 2022) when the plaintiffs lawyer admitted a letter was a denial of a UM/UIM claim that denial started the running of the statute of limitations.
Glenna L. Novak and the Estate of Jeffrey Leonard Novak (collectively “Appellants”) appealed from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit Insurance Company (“MBIC”).
FACTS
In June 2011, Jeffrey Leonard Novak (“Decedent”) was operating a motorcycle when a vehicle driven by Roy E. Wright made a left turn across Decedent’s lane of travel, causing the motorcycle to strike the vehicle. Decedent was thrown from his motorcycle and sustained injuries, including severe head trauma, which resulted in death.
Appellants sought recovery from Wright, who had an insurance policy through Progressive Specialty Insurance Company (“PSIG”). Wright’s policy had a bodily injury limit of $50,000, which PSIG tendered. Appellants also submitted a claim for underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage under Decedent’s motorcycle policy (“motorcycle policy”). The motorcycle policy was issued by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company (“PAIC”). PAIC informed Appellants that Decedent had rejected UIM coverage. Appellants sued, contending the UIM rejection was ineffective, and they eventually reached an agreement to resolve the suit for $20,000.
Appellants’ counsel wrote to MBIC, which had issued insurance on two of Appellants’ other vehicles, a car and a truck, seeking consent to settle the two claims. In a letter dated October 3, 2012, MBIC stated the motorcycle that Decedent was driving at the time of the accident was not insured by MBIC. Therefore, MBIC explained, UIM coverage was not available under its policy and its consent was not required for settlement.
Appellants later made a claim to MBIC for UIM coverage under the personal auto policy. MBIC denied UIM coverage, stating it had previously denied coverage in the October 2012 letter, when it explained that its consent was unnecessary for the settlements. Appellants sued in February 2018 (six years after the first denial), and they filed a complaint in May 2019. They alleged breach of contract, sought a declaratory judgment, and requested damages for bad faith.
MBIC ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, in part, that Appellants’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
DISCUSSION
Appellants maintain the accrual date for the action could not have occurred before August 2017, when they submitted a UIM claim to MBIC. Appellants contended that an unsolicited opinion or observation by an insurer that it may or may not have coverage applicable to a particular matter is different from an insurer processing a claim affirmatively stated and submitted by an insured to the insurer for action and denying that insured the specific benefits claimed.
Pennsylvania law provides for a four-year statute of limitations on breach of contract actions and related declaratory judgment actions. In this case the trial court concluded the limitations period began to run when MBIC denied coverage in the October 2012 letter and therefore the current case, commenced in 2018, was barred by the statute of limitations.
It cannot genuinely be disputed that MBIC denied coverage of the subject accident by letter dated October 3, 2012. Although Appellants had not yet made a claim under their MBIC Policy, a plain reading of the 2012 letter makes clear that MBIC was denying coverage for the subject accident. In order to file a timely breach of contract claim, Appellants should have filed their action no later than October 3, 2016, which they did not do.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal concluded that Appellants’ claims were untimely, and summary judgment should be entered in favor of MBIC on all claims.
The October letter stated that UIM coverage is not available under the policy. Even Appellants’ counsel admitted that upon receipt of the letter in 2012, he interpreted the letter as a denial of coverage. Therefore, the record supported the finding of a concession by counsel and an obvious failure to sue timely which defeated the suit.
ZALMA OPINION
When the lawyer for the plaintiff concedes that there was a denial in 2012 and the suit was not filed until 2018 he has conceded the statute of limitations applied and the suit was untimely probably because he agreed there was no coverage under the MBIC policy. When a plaintiff has a viable cause of action against an insurer there is no excuse for failing to sue within a four year statute of limitations.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected] and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
No alt text provided for this image
Now available Barry Zalma’s newest book, The Tort of Bad Faith, and “How to Acquire, Understand, and Make a Successful Claim on a Commercial Property Insurance Policy: Information Needed for Individuals and Insurance Pros to Deal With Commercial Property Insurance” the New Books are now available as a Kindle book here, paperback here and as a hardcover here available at amazon.com.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at
Zalma on Insurance
Insurance, insurance claims, insurance law, and insurance fraud .
By Barry Zalma
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
