Shafer v. Newman Ins. Agency
2013 Ohio 885
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Maynard Shafer obtained a Nationwide tenant insurance policy for premises at 689 Foster Street, Franklin, Ohio.
- The alleged theft of Tommy Shafer's tools occurred on September 3, 2010.
- Shafer filed suit on January 12, 2012, seeking coverage for the loss.
- Section I – CONDITIONS of the policy states: no action unless started within one year after the date of loss.
- Appellees moved for summary judgment arguing untimeliness and lack of proper notice; Shafer argued discovery and notice should toll the deadline.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; the appellate court affirmed, holding the one-year limit was unambiguous and enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the one-year suit limit bars the claim | Shafer argues discovery tolled the period and he complied with notice. | Newman argues suit must be started within one year of the loss date, regardless of discovery. | Limitations provision is valid; suit untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dominish v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 466 (2011) (interprets 'one year after the date of loss' as controlling for filing deadlines)
- Miller v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 619 (1994) (validates contractual limitations if reasonable and clear)
- Mastellone v. Lightning Rod Mut. Ins. Co., 175 Ohio App.3d 23 (2008) (upholds one-year limitation clauses in some policies)
- Figetakis v. Owners Ins. Co., 2006-Ohio-918 (9th Dist.) (supports enforcing one-year service limits in insurance contracts)
- Lane v. Grange Mut. Cos., 45 Ohio St.3d 63 (1989) (says policy terms must be clear and unambiguous to shorten time limits)