Whether claims were barred by the policy's limitations period

Holding that the trial court did not err by finding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the policy’s limitations period, and thus, that summary disposition was appropriate, the court affirmed. “Plaintiff owns residential buildings for lease. Defendants issued to plaintiff a businessowner’s insurance policy that covered plaintiff’s buildings (the policy). In [3/17], a storm caused interior and exterior damage to fifteen buildings leased by plaintiff.” As to the limitations provision itself, it was “undisputed that plaintiff failed to bring an action within two years of the date on which the loss occurred.” Thus, the court concluded that “by the plain and unambiguous language of the policy provision, plaintiff was barred from bringing legal action against defendants under the policy, unless the time period is tolled.” Notwithstanding the plain language of the provision, plaintiff argued “that defendants may not rely on the limitations period because they allegedly failed to fully comply with the policy—specifically, plaintiff argues that defendants failed to respond appropriately to plaintiff’s demands for an appraisal of the amount of the loss.” Plaintiff’s argument was nonsensical. “The limitations provision provides two conditions that must be met before defendants can be sued under the policy. Plaintiff’s argument that defendants did not comply with the policy, even if correct, is irrelevant to the determination of whether the limitations period bars plaintiff’s claims. Nothing in the language of the provision requires defendants to fully comply with a demand for appraisal in order to assert the limitations period as a defense; indeed, at its most basic level, an action against defendants under the policy is a claim that defendants did not comply with the policy.” Further, the court held that “regardless of how the phrase ‘[t]here has been full compliance with all of the terms of this insurance’ is interpreted, the fact remains that plaintiff’s suit was filed well outside the two-year limitations period.” The court concluded that plaintiff’s “claim could only be saved by the tolling provision, if at all. The trial court did not err by determining that the limitations period was not tolled long enough for plaintiff’s action to be timely.” Plaintiff argued “that defendants never formally denied liability for its claims, characterizing defendant’s correspondence as a disagreement on the amount of the loss that should have been resolved by the appraisal process, not a denial of coverage.” The court disagreed. It concluded plaintiff’s “invocation of the appraisal process under the policy did not affect whether defendants had formally denied plaintiff’s claims.”