952 F. Supp. 2d 629
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Chepilko, proceeding pro se, sued CLICNY for breach of contract over disability benefits denial under a Group Long-term Disability Policy.
- This Court previously granted summary judgment for CLICNY in 2012, leading Chepilko to seek reconsideration.
- Restart motion analyzed under Local Civil Rule 6.3 (formerly 3(j)); movant must show the Court overlooked controlling decisions or facts.
- Chepilko argued fraud and fiduciary breach for not informing him about applicable statute of limitations and sought equitable tolling due to disabilities.
- Chepilko was provided a booklet describing the statute of limitations, which stated a three-year limit; he was notified of denial and his right to sue.
- The action was time-barred since Chepilko filed in 2008 for a loss-date in 2002, with the policy requiring timely action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May new arguments be considered on reconsideration? | Chepilko argues new fraud/equitable tolling points should be considered. | New arguments were not raised in the underlying motion and are inappropriate on reconsideration. | No; new arguments were not considered. |
| Are fraud and fiduciary duties adequately pled? | Defendant failed to provide correct information about statute of limitations and engaged in fraud. | Allegations are insufficiently particular under Rule 9(b) and fail to state a fraud claim. | Fraud claim inadequately pled and unsupported. |
| Is equitable tolling warranted for disability-related delays? | Disabilities excuse delay under equitable tolling. | Equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and diligent pursuit, which are not shown. | Equitable tolling not demonstrated; arguments rejected. |
| Should the three-year vs six-year limitation be applied based on policy language? | Policy language is vague; six-year limitation should apply. | Policy language is plain and unambiguous; three-year limit governs. | Three-year limit governs; policy language unambiguous. |
| Is amendment to the complaint timely and proper? | Requests to amend are timely in reply and should avoid dismissal. | Amendment is untimely and futile given statute-of-limitations bar. | Amendment denied; motion futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caputo v. Pfizer, Inc., 267 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2001) (fraud claims require particularity under Rule 9(b))
- Zerilli-Edelglass v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Chapman v. ChoiceCare Long Island Term Disability Plan, 288 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2002) (factors for applying equitable tolling include diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Acito v. IMCERA Grp., Inc., 47 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1995) (prohibits needless amendments and guides reconsideration standards)
- Blitman Constr. Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 66 N.Y.2d 820 (1985) (notice of limitation periods and rights; defenses barred when time-barred)