Myers v. Agrilogic Insurance Services, LLC
694 F. App'x 373
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Myerses filed suit in state court alleging breach of contract and UCSPA violation after AgriLogic denied corn-damage claims; case removed to federal court and dismissed as to breach of contract for untimeliness; court held UCSPA claim viable and remanded; contract contains a 12-month from occurrence limitations provision; Kentucky §304.14-370 permits at least a one-year period for actions against foreign insurers.
- District court found the 12-month provision enforceable, calculating from the July 25, 2012 damage date with denial May 9, 2013 and suit May 7, 2014; plaintiff argued tolling during insurer investigation and accrual at denial; defendant argued contract time-and-notice provisions control and accrue at loss date.
- Under Kentucky law, contract-based limitations provisions can be valid and enforceable if not less than one year from accrual; accrual can occur before the insured can sue depending on policy terms, and tolling is debated in Kentucky cases.
- Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 403 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2005) supports enforcing a one-year limit if reasonable time to sue is provided; Riggs v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 484 S.W.3d 724 (Ky. 2016) upheld a two-year UIM limitation as reasonable; Edmondson v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Cas. Ins. Co., 781 S.W.2d 753 (Ky. 1989); Ashland Finance Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 474 S.W.2d 364 (Ky. 1971); Forwood v. City of Louisville, 140 S.W.2d 1048 (Ky. 1940); Carter v. Harlan Hosp. Ass’n, 97 S.W.2d 9 (Ky. 1936); Philpot v. Stacy, 371 S.W.2d 11 (Ky. 1963).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 12-month from occurrence limit is valid under Kentucky law. | Myers argues the limit may be unenforceable if it deprives reasonable time to sue. | AgriLogic contends the provision is valid and enforceable as a one-year period from loss. | Limit valid and enforceable under Kentucky law. |
| When does accrual occur for the contract claim under §304.14-370? | Myers contends accrual occurs at denial or tolling during investigation. | AgriLogic argues accrual occurs at loss date; tolling not supported. | Accrual can align with loss date per Kentucky precedent; tolling not recognized here. |
| Can the UCSPA claim be dismissed on the same timeliness grounds as the contract claim? | UCSPA claim should survive discovery and tolling considerations. | If contract limitations apply, UCSPA claim should be barred. | UCSPA claim survives dismissal for further proceedings on remand. |
| Does Riggs/Hensley impact accrual or tolling for UCSPA against a foreign insurer? | Riggs supports reasonable limitation; Hensley suggested accrual nuances. | Riggs governs enforceability of shorter periods; Hensley forecloses tolling. | Riggs controlling; no tolling recognized; Hensley remand considerations do not defeat UCSPA claim on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 403 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2005) (limitations clauses can be enforceable when reasonable time to sue is provided)
- Edmondson v. Pennsylvania National Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 781 S.W.2d 753 (Ky. 1989) (validity of from-occurrence limitations in insurance contracts)
- Ashland Fin. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 474 S.W.2d 364 (Ky. 1971) (suit within one year after discovery of loss reasonable)
- Forwood v. City of Louisville, 140 S.W.2d 1048 (Ky. 1940) (timing of accrual and limitations considerations)
- Carter v. Harlan Hosp. Ass’n, 97 S.W.2d 9 (Ky. 1936) (early accrual/limitations concepts in Kentucky)
- Philpot v. Stacy, 371 S.W.2d 11 (Ky. 1963) (accrual principles in Kentucky cases)
- Riggs v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 484 S.W.3d 724 (Ky. 2016) (two-year UIM limitation upheld as reasonable)