Private Limitation of Action Provision Enforceable
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gsgfe8bx, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gVD8Kw-m and at https://lnkd.in/gq6cmPZc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4350 posts.
The Hanover Insurance Company, Inc. (“Hanover”) and Sportsinsurance.com, Inc. (“Sportsinsurance”) each appealed from the District Court’s order granting in part and denying in part Hanover’s motion to dismiss Sportsinsurance’s complaint because it failed to sue within two years after learning of the fact that it was the victim of an embezzlement.
In Sportsinsurance.com, Inc. v. The Hanover Insurance Company, Inc., Nos. 21-1967-cv (L), 21-2063-cv (XAP), United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (November 4, 2022) Sportsinsurance discovered that Kenza El Baroudi (“Baroudi”), its Chief Financial Officer, was embezzling from the company. Sportsinsurance believed Baroudi’s embezzlement constituted a loss under an insurance policy (“Policy”) it held with Hanover, and it accordingly submitted a claim under the Policy.
Hanover denied the claim. Sportsinsurance did not immediately sue Hanover under the Policy. Instead, Sportsinsurance pursued a legal action against Baroudi in Quebec, Canada. In July 2019, the Canadian court found that Baroudi had “wrongfully misappropriated” money from Sportsinsurance. Armed with this judgment Sportsinsurance submitted a second claim to Hanover. Hanover once again denied it. At that point, in March 2020, Sportsinsurance sued Hanover. Sportsinsurance alleged that Hanover breached both the express terms of the Policy and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The District Court dismissed Sportsinsurance’s breach of contract claim as time-barred by the Policy’s contractual limitations provision (“Limitations Provision”), which required Sportsinsurance to bring any action “involving loss” within two years “from the date . . . [it] ‘discovered’ the loss.” The District Court found that, among other things, the implied covenant claim was not subject to the Limitations Provision because it did not “involve loss.”
THE ISSUES
Concluding it has jurisdiction to review the breach of contract claim the Second Circuit found the question became whether it would exercise its discretion to do so and concluded that addressing Sportsinsurance’s cross-appeal will promote judicial and litigant efficiency without prejudicing either party.
Next issue, the question of whether the breach of contract claim is time-barred and thus subject to dismissal. Because an agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to commence an action is enforceable. Language in an insurance policy’s contractual limitations period is construed as starting the clock not at the time of the accident itself but only once ‘the right to bring an action exists. That default rule gives way if a policy contains “exceptionally clear language” that, for example, “fixes the limitations period to the date of the accident.”
Importantly, and in relevant part, the Policy defines “discovered” as “the time when [Sportsinsurance] first become[s] aware of facts which would cause a reasonable person to assume that a loss of a type covered by this policy has been or will be incurred.” That specific definition fixes the Limitations Provision’s commencement to when Sportsinsurance reasonably knew it had or would suffer a loss. This is the type of “especially clear language” which displaces the default rule. Therefore, the contractual limitations period commenced in January 2016 when Sportsinsurance “discovered” Baroudi’s “frauds and thefts.”
The Second Circuit concluded that this Limitations Provision is not unreasonable nor is there is nothing inherently unreasonable about a two-year period of limitation.
Sportsinsurance argued that the Limitations Provision here is unreasonable because it requires that Sportsinsurance (1) “compl[y] with the terms” of the Policy and (2) not bring suit until “90 days after it filed its proof of loss,” which it had to file within 120 days of discovering the loss. These requirements did not prevent Sportsinsurance from timely suing. Sportsinsurance “discovered” the loss in January 2016. By January 2017, Hanover had investigated and “denied” Sportsinsurance’s claim. Sportsinsurance had a full year to bring a legal action against Hanover. It did not. Since the Limitations Provision is fair and reasonable it is enforceable.
In a final effort to evade the Limitations Provision, Sportsinsurance argued that Hanover is either estopped from enforcing or waived the Limitations Provision. The bare allegation that Hanover stated it was open to additional information cannot carry Sportsinsurance’s estoppel or waiver arguments to forestall affirmance of the District Court’s order dismissing the breach of contract claim.
The first two breaches “involve” Baroudi’s embezzlement because the embezzlement is the basis for the claim under the Policy. The implied covenant claim is thus time-barred. The Second Circuit accordingly reversed and dismissed the claim that Hanover breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The declaratory judgment action was dismissed as time-barred because it involves “loss” as Sportsinsurance defined that term.
ZALMA OPINION
Almost ever policy of insurance contains a private limitation of action provision requiring suit to be filed against the insurer within one or two years of discovering the claim. Some states, like California, by court opinion and regulation require that the private limitation of suit provision start running when the claim is denied rather than when it is discovered. In this case, it didn’t matter which, since the plaintiff Sportsinsurance waited more than two years from the denial to file suit proving that he who sits on his rights will lose.
(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.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at
Zalma on Insurance
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
Convicted Criminal Seeks to Compel Receiver to Protect his Assets
Post number 5291
See the video at and at and at https://www.zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
The Work of a Court Appointed Receiver is Constitutionally Protected
In Simon Semaan et al. v. Robert P. Mosier et al., G064385, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division (February 6, 2026) the Court of Appeals applied the California anti-SLAPP statute which protects defendants from meritless lawsuits arising from constitutionally protected activities, including those performed in official capacities. The court also considered the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which shields court-appointed receivers from liability for discretionary acts performed within their official duties.
Facts
In September 2021, the State of California filed felony charges against Simon Semaan, alleging violations of Insurance Code section 11760(a) for making...
When There are Two Different Other Insurance Clauses They Eliminate Each Other and Both Insurers Owe Indemnity Equally
Post number 5289
In Great West Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., and Conserv FS, Inc., and Timothy A. Brennan, as Administrator of the Estate of Pat- rick J. Brennan, deceased, Nos. 24-1258, 24-1259, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (February 11, 2026) the USCA was required to resolve a dispute that arose when a tractor-trailer operated by Robert D. Fisher (agent of Deerpass Farms Trucking, LLC-II) was involved in a side-impact collision with an SUV driven by Patrick J. Brennan, resulting in Brennan’s death.
Facts
Deerpass Trucking, an interstate motor carrier, leased the tractor from Deerpass Farms Services, LLC, and hauled cargo for Conserv FS, Inc. under a trailer interchange agreement. The tractor was insured by Great West Casualty Company with a $1 million policy limit, while the trailer was insured by Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company with a $2 million ...
Opiod Producer Seeks Indemnity from CGL Insurers
Post number 5288
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guNhStN2, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYqkk-n3 and at https://lnkd.in/g8U3ehuc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurers Exclude Damages Due to Insured’s Products
In Matthew Dundon, As The Trustee Of The Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 24-4221, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (February 10, 2026) Matthew Dundon, trustee of the Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust, sued multiple commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for coverage of opioid-related litigation involving Endo International PLC a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
KEY FACTS
Beginning as early as 2014, thousands of opioid suits were filed by governments, third parties, and individuals alleging harms tied to opioid manufacturing and marketing.
Bankruptcy & Settlements
Endo filed Chapter 11 in August 2022; before bankruptcy it ...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lost the ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah. Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and wonder how did all these wonderful things come into being. Jews believe the force we call G_d created the entire universe and everything in it. Jews feel G_d is all seeing and knowing and although we can’t see Him, He is everywhere and in everyone.We understand...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/passover-americans-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-5vgkc.
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lostthe ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah.
Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and ...
You Get What You Pay For – Less Coverage Means Lower Premium
Post number 5275
Posted on January 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
When Experts for Both Sides Agree That Two Causes Concur to Cause a Wall to Collapse Exclusion Applies
In Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Insurance Company, No. 1-24-1465, 2026 IL App (1st) 241465-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois (January 27, 2026) resolved the effect of an anti-concurrent cause exclusion to a loss with more than one cause.
Facts and Background
Lido Hospitality, Inc. operates the Lido Motel in Franklin Park, Illinois. In November 2020, a windstorm caused one of the motel’s brick veneer walls to collapse. At the time, Lido was insured under a policy issued by AIX Specialty Insurance Company which provided coverage for windstorm damage. However, the policy contained an exclusion for any loss or damage directly or indirectly resulting from ...
