When Defendant Wins the Statute of Limitations Starts to Run
Post 4894
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gTUuqMUW, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gEGNXAdw and at https://lnkd.in/gQWSkEXT, https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Dr. Gerald Dworkin sued Liberty Mutual and various subsidiaries for wrongful use of civil proceedings arising out of a previous lawsuit accusing Dworkin of insurance fraud. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that Dworkin's suit was barred by the statute of limitations.
In Gerald Dworkin, D.O. v. Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 24-1590, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (September 18, 2024) the USDC resolved the issue.
FACTS
Dworkin was sued in 2017 by Liberty Mutual for alleged insurance fraud. The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in Dworkin's favor, and Liberty Mutual appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which affirmed in a November 29, 2021 unpublished opinion. The Superior Court reissued its decision as a published opinion on February 1, 2022. On March 22, 2022, the Superior Court remanded the record to the Common Pleas Court. Dworkin filed his initial complaint in this case on March 20, 2024 two days less than two years after the remand order and more than two years after the published opinion.
THE MOTION
A court may only dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) based on the statute of limitations when the basis for the limitations defense is evident from the complaint itself or other materials the court may consider, which include exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record.
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
The statute of limitations for a claim of wrongful use of civil proceedings is two years. A claim's limitations period generally begins to run as soon as it accrues; that is, as soon as the right to institute and maintain a suit arises. A plaintiff's right to institute and maintain a suit for wrongful use of civil proceedings generally arises when underlying proceedings have terminated in his favor.
The underlying proceedings terminate for the purposes of a wrongful-use claim when the defendant in the underlying proceedings successfully defeats the plaintiff's attempts to have him held legally liable. The defendant successfully defeats the plaintiff when judgment for the defendant becomes final, which generally happens when the judgment has been upheld by the highest appellate court having jurisdiction over the case or the judgment has not been appealed.
Dworkin contended his claim accrued when the Superior Court remanded the record to the trial court on March 22, 2022. That was incorrect. The grant of summary judgment was by law subject to revision during the pendency of the claims against co-defendants and was therefore not a final judgment until, at the earliest, the date on which the plaintiff in the underlying proceedings agreed to settle and release all defendants.
Dworkin's claim accrued at the expiration of Liberty Mutual's time to appeal the Superior Court's ruling because that is the point at which he successfully defeated Liberty Mutual's attempts to have him held legally liable, more than two years before the filing of Dworkin's suit.
ZALMA OPINION
The statute of limitations exists to protect defendants against stale claims which are difficult to defend because facts and witnesses become stale. Dworkin beat Liberty Mutual's suit claiming he committed fraud. If he wished to obtain damages from Liberty he should have sued as soon as he could rather than waiting more than two years and claiming that his account only accrued when at the ministerial act rather than than on the day the final judgment was entered at the time of the appeal affirming the judgment.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
