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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
