You are here: / / DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF...
,

DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, overruling Fourth Department precedent, determined causes of action stemming from a 2009 home burglary should not have been dismissed as barred by the two year statute of limitation. The term “date of loss” in the policy was interpreted to mean the date of the claim denial, not the date of the burglary:

Plaintiff commenced this action more than two years after the 2009 theft. Interpreting the phrase “date of loss” as the date on which the theft occurred, defendant contends that the action is time-barred under the terms of the policy. Plaintiff, on the other hand, interprets the phrase “date of loss” as the date on which the claim was denied and, as a result, contends that the action was timely commenced. We agree with plaintiff. Despite cases holding that “date of loss” means the date of the underlying catastrophe, including cases from this Department (see Baluk v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 1151; Klawiter v CGU/OneBeacon Ins. Group, 27 AD3d 1155), the Court of Appeals has found a distinction between the generic phrase “date of loss,” and the term of art “inception of loss” (see Medical Facilities v Pryke, 95 AD2d 692, 693, affd 62 NY2d 716; Proc v Home Ins. Co., 17 NY2d 239, 243-244, rearg denied 18 NY2d 751; Steen v Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 89 NY 315, 322-325). As the Second Circuit noted in Fabozzi v Lexington Ins. Co. (601 F3d 88, 91), those cases have not been overruled or disavowed in any way.

Indeed, as the 1st Department recognized in Medical Facilities, “nothing in [Proc] suggests an intention to alter [the] general rule” … , which is “that an action for breach of contract commences running at the time the breach takes place” … . Thus, only the very specific “inception of loss” or other similarly “distinct language” permits using the catastrophe date as the limitations date … . Here, the policy did not contain the specific “inception of loss” or other similarly distinct language, and we thus disavow our decisions in Baluk and Klawiter to the extent that they hold otherwise.

Inasmuch as ” [a]mbiguities in an insurance policy are to be construed against the insurer’ ” … , we conclude that the two-year limitations period contained in the policy did not begin to run until “the loss [became] due and payable” … . Lobello v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05543, 4th Dept 7-7-17

INSURANCE LAW (DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (INSURANCE LAW, DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT)

You might also like
THE PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER STATEMENT WAS INADEQUATE BECAUSE IT DID NOT CLEARLY INDICATE THE PERIODS OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR INCARCERATION; THEREFORE, BECAUSE THE TEN-YEAR CUT-OFF PERIOD IS TOLLED DURING INCARCERATION, IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED WHETHER DEFENDANT’S PRIOR FELONIES FELL WITHIN THE TEN-YEAR CUT-OFF PERIOD FOR A VALID PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Hearsay Evidence in Neglect Proceeding Was Not Admissible—Petition Dismissed
PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT).
REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT).
Repugnant Verdict Required Reversal
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO FELT POLICE OFFICERS WOULD NOT LIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STATEMENTS MADE UNDER CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IN DEFENDANT’S HOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ‘LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE’ ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY THE MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE ELEMENT OF RECKLESSNESS IN THIS ASSAULT CASE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTHER DEMONSTRATED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE ALLEGATION THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NEGLIGENT IN ADDRESSING THE BULLYING OF HER SON; MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD,...