Bariski v. Reassure America Life Insurance
834 F. Supp. 2d 233
M.D. Penn.2011Background
- Plaintiff Janice Bariski sues on behalf of herself and as executrix of her husband James Bariski’s estate, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law claims related to termination of a life insurance policy.
- Defendant Reassure America Life Insurance Company issued policy 3166593 to James Bariski on June 8, 1990 with a 31-day grace period; policy remains in force during grace period.
- After a November 8, 2005 premium due, lapse notice issued December 9, 2005; policy later included an extra-contractual 30-day grace period during which reinstatement is possible without evidence of insurability if past due premiums are paid.
- A premium of $364.05 was due November 8, 2005; lapse notice indicated lapse and granted a 30-day grace period, with November payment treated as timely if received within grace periods, leading to a January 9, 2006 lapse and a January 9, 2006 termination notice for non-payment.
- Bariski disputed timing, saying payment was postmarked November 14, 2005 and later sent another check; Defendant later claimed receipt date was January 10, 2006; policy termination occurred January 9, 2006, before reinstatement.
- Bariski died December 20, 2007; suit was filed January 11, 2010; the court analyzes whether the bad faith claim is time-barred and whether discovery or fraudulent concealment tolling applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 8371 bad faith claim is time-barred | Bariski asserts discovery and concealment tolling extend the period. | Two-year statute of limitations expired; discovery and fraudulent concealment do not save the claim. | Yes, time-barred; discovery rule and fraudulent concealment do not toll. |
| Application of discovery rule to toll the statute | Bariski did not know the injury and cause until Spring 2006; discovery rule should toll. | By January 2006 Bariski knew injury and cause, so discovery rule does not apply. | Discovery rule inapplicable; no tolling. |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolls the statute | Defendant’s misrepresentations concealed injury and its cause. | Plaintiff had actual knowledge of injury and its cause in early 2006; concealment tolling not shown. | Fraudulent concealment does not toll the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ash v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 593 Pa. 523 (2007) (two-year limitations for § 8371 bad faith claim)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (discovery rule defined and applied narrowly)
- Mest v. Cabot Corp., 449 F.3d 502 (3d Cir. 2006) (discovery rule tolling requires awareness of injury and cause)
- Wilson v. El-Daief, 964 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2009) (discovery rule inquiry is generally factual but may be resolved on summary judgment)
- Kucera v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 719 F.2d 678 (3d Cir. 1983) (beneficiary lacks standing to challenge termination until insured dies)
- Pocono Int'l Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80 (1983) (accrual of claims for statute of limitations)
- Delaney v. Archdiocese, 924 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (fraudulent concealment not applied where injury itself was not concealed)
- Bohus v. Beloff, 950 F.2d 919 (3d Cir. 1991) (fraudulent concealment doctrine)
- Adamski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 738 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (statute of limitations for bad faith claims)