Compis Services, Inc., Appellant, v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, Respondent

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division2000-05-10No. Appeal No. 1

272 A.D.2d 886708 N.Y.S.2d 770

Summary · law.co

Holding. The order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaints as untimely was unanimously affirmed. Compis's actions were properly dismissed because they were not commenced within the two-year limitations period required by the insurance policies, and Compis failed to establish genuine issues of fact regarding waiver or estoppel.

Compis Services filed two separate insurance claims in 1997 and 1998 seeking recovery for losses that occurred in 1993. Both insurance policies contained two-year limitations periods requiring that lawsuits be brought within two years of the loss. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaints as time-barred, and the trial court granted both motions. Compis argued that the insurers had waived or were estopped from enforcing the limitations period based on their delay in denying coverage, settlement discussions, and failure to notify Compis of the deadline.

The appellate court found no genuine dispute of material fact supporting Compis's waiver and estoppel arguments. An insurer's delay in investigating and disclaiming a claim does not excuse an insured from complying with contractual time limits. Settlement negotiations and communications between the parties, standing alone, do not establish waiver or estoppel. The insurers had no obligation to remind Compis of the policy's limitations period. Additionally, both insurers had conducted their dealings under explicit reservations of rights, which prevented any inference of waiver or estoppel.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an insured's failure to timely sue under an insurance policy can be excused by the insurer's delay in denying coverage
Whether settlement negotiations between an insured and insurer can constitute waiver or estoppel of a contractual limitations period
Whether an insurer has a duty to notify an insured of policy limitations periods
Effect of an insurer's reservation of rights on claims of waiver or estoppel

Procedural posture

Compis appealed from the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing its complaints as untimely under the insurance policies' two-year limitations periods.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced separate actions, one in November 1997 (appeal No. 1) and the other in July 1998 (appeal No. 2), to recover under insurance policies for losses incurred in March 1993. Supreme Court properly granted each defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as untimely. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the actions were not commenced within two years of the loss as required by each policy (see, Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967-968), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

With respect to defendant, The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (Hartford Steam), plaintiff contends that there is an issue of fact on its claims of waiver and/or estoppel based upon Hartford Steam’s delay in disclaiming coverage, offer of settlement and failure to advise plaintiff of the limitations period. The delay in disclaiming coverage, however, was attributable to Hartford Steam’s investigation of plaintiff’s claim, and “[d]elay by the insurance carrier in completing its investigation of the claim does not excuse the plaintiff from timely commencing an action, since he or she is bound by the terms of the contract to either commence an action prior to the expiration of the limitations period or obtain a waiver or extension of such provision” (Brown v Royal Ins. Co., 210 AD2d 279). Further, contrary to plaintiffs contention, “[Evidence of communications or settlement negotiations between an insured and its insurer either before or after expiration of a limitations period contained in a policy is not, without more, sufficient to prove waiver or estoppel” (Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., supra, at 968). Finally, Hartford Steam had no duty to advise plaintiff of the limitations period. A “carrier [is not] obligated to call plaintiffs attention to the policy provisions” (Blitman Constr. Corp. v Insurance Co., 66 NY2d 820, 823; see, Schunk v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 237 AD2d 913, 914; May v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 204 AD2d 1007). In any event, Hartford Steam conducted its investigation and entered into settlement negotiations “under a full reservation of rights,” and thus a waiver or estoppel may not be inferred therefrom (see, Culinary Inst, v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 151 AD2d 638, 638-639).

Plaintiff also contends that there is an issue of fact concerning its claims of waiver and/or estoppel with respect to defendant, ITT Hartford Insurance Company, Inc. (ITT). We disagree. Regardless of what happened prior to August 25, 1995, plaintiff acknowledged on that date that “both parties retain all of their respective legal rights under the terms and conditions of the said policy.” Nearly three years then elapsed before plaintiff commenced its action. For that three-year period, plaintiff “offers no evidence from which a clear manifestation of intent by [ITT] to relinquish the protection of the contractual limitations period could be reasonably inferred * * * Nor do the facts show that [ITT], by its conduct, otherwise lulled plaintiff into sleeping on its rights under the insurance contract” (Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., supra, at 968). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Elliott, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner and Scudder, JJ.