Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons issued the same day, it was never served and never returned. Plaintiff did not obtain an alias summons until February 6, 2026, more than one year later. Plaintiff also asserted a statutory bad-faith claim under Tennessee law, alleging that it had made a formal demand on December 7, 2023 and that West Bend failed to pay within sixty days.
LAW
Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3, filing a complaint commences an action for statute-of-limitations purposes, but if process is not served within 90 days, the plaintiff cannot rely on the original filing date to toll the statute unless new process is obtained within one year of the prior process (or filing, if no process issued).
Tennessee law also permits insurance policies to impose contractual limitations periods, and such provisions are enforceable. Here, the policy imposed a two-year contractual limitations period for the breach-of-contract claim.
For the bad-faith claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-105, Tennessee courts apply a one-year statute of limitations, which begins to run sixty days after formal demand or upon refusal to comply with the demand.
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS
The court held that Plaintiff’s filing of the complaint on December 17, 2024 did not toll the limitations period because Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 3. The original summons was issued on the filing date but was never served or returned within ninety days, and Plaintiff did not obtain new process within one year. Because the alias summons was not issued until February 6, 2026, Plaintiff could not rely on the original filing date as the commencement date.
As a result, the breach-of-contract action was deemed commenced, at the earliest, on February 6, 2026, which was outside the policy’s two-year limitations period running from the December 25, 2022 loss. The breach-of-contract claim was time-barred.
The same procedural failure doomed the bad-faith claim. Because the complaint filing did not toll the statute, the bad-faith claim also was not timely commenced within its one-year statute of limitations, which had accrued no later than sixty days after the December 7, 2023 demand. Thus, that claim too was barred as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
The court granted West Bend’s motion to dismiss. It held that Plaintiff failed to comply with Tennessee Rule 3, so the complaint did not toll the limitations periods. Consequently, the breach-of-contract claim was not commenced within the policy’s two-year limitations period, and the bad-faith claim was not commenced within the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Both claims were dismissed with prejudice.
In summary, the failure to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 means that the filing of the complaint did not toll the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the the breach of contract claim was not commenced within two years of the loss, and the bad faith claim was not commenced within one year of accrual. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
Whenever a person insured is unhappy with an insurer’s claims handling and decides to sue the insured and the insured’s counsel must first read the insurance policy to determine if it contains a private limitation of action provision limiting the time available to sue different from state statutes of limitations. Shree Ugtai Express, Inc’s counsel first filed suit within the two year limit but failed to serve it promptly and fell to the private limitations of action because state law did not recognize the suit until it was served. The lesson is don’t sit on your rights or you will lose them.
(c) 2026 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://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
