A+ Restorations, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
714 F. App'x 923
11th Cir.2017Background
- Homeowners policy issued by Liberty to Larry and Nancy Mitchell; raccoon damage discovered March 2014.
- Mitchells hired A+ Restorations (A Plus) to repair damage and assigned to A Plus the right to collect insurance benefits and to initiate suit under the policy.
- A Plus invoiced Liberty; Liberty paid part but left $98,794.79 unpaid; A Plus made a final demand in August 2014 which Liberty denied.
- A Plus sued Liberty for breach of contract and alternatively for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment in April 2016. Liberty removed and moved to dismiss/judgment on the pleadings.
- The policy contained a clause: “No action can be brought unless the policy provisions have been fully complied with and the action is started within two years after the date of loss.” The district court granted judgment for Liberty as time-barred; A Plus appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A Plus (assignee) is bound by the policy's two-year suit-limitation | Assignment purportedly limited to collection rights and did not assign policy terms, so Georgia six-year contract statute governs | Assignee stands in assignor’s shoes and obtains no greater rights; policy’s suit-limitation binds assignee | Held: A Plus is bound by the two-year suit-limitation because it obtained the Mitchells’ rights under the policy |
| When the two-year limitation began to run | Limit accrues on insurer’s final denial (August 2014), so suit filed April 2016 would be timely | “Date of loss” is the triggering event (March 2014); limitations ran before A Plus sued | Held: “Loss” means the insured event (March 2014); limitations began then, so suit is untimely |
| Whether equitable claims (quantum meruit, unjust enrichment) escape the policy limitation | Equitable claims are independent of the policy and thus not subject to the policy’s time bar | The policy bars any “action;” equitable claims brought by assignee are encompassed | Held: Equitable claims are barred by the same suit-limitation clause |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Telecom, Inc. v. TW Telecom of Ga. L.P., 741 S.E.2d 234 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (assignee takes no greater rights than assignor)
- Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kephart, 439 S.E.2d 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (insurance contracts construed by plain language)
- W. Pac. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davies, 601 S.E.2d 363 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (give insurance terms ordinary meaning)
- Thornton v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 695 S.E.2d 642 (Ga. 2010) (limitations period begins on date of loss, not on insurer’s investigatory deadlines)
- Suntrust Mortg., Inc. v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 416 S.E.2d 322 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (suit-limitation provisions are enforceable)
- McCoury v. Allstate Ins. Co., 561 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (broad policy time bars can encompass non-breach equitable actions)
- Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney's Office for Escambia Cty., 592 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2010) (de novo review standard for judgment on the pleadings)
Disposition: Affirmed judgment dismissing A Plus’s claims as time-barred by the policy’s two-year suit-limitation.