State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Riddell National Bank, 984 N.E.2d 655

Riddell, as mortgagee, held a security interest in a Parke County home whose owners filed bankruptcy.
The homeowners executed a deed in lieu of foreclosure to Riddell after bankruptcy proceedings.
Riddell discovered significant property damage (water, mold, structural issues) in 2009 but the claim was not filed until 2011.
State Farm insured the property and the policy required filing suit within one year after the loss.
Indiana Code § 27-1-13-17 prohibits policy terms restricting actions to less than two years from loss.
Conformity-to-state-law clause in the policy directs applicability of state law where a policy term conflicts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy creates a two-year limitations period	Riddell contends the statute applies as a default two-year period.	State Farm argues only a one-year term is enforceable, but the statute governs if in conflict.	The ten-year default applies; the one-year term is void and claim timely.

Jones v. Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 926 N.E.2d 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory interpretation principles; unambiguous statutes applied)
S.C. Nestel, Inc. v. Future Const., Inc., 836 N.E.2d 445 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (contract interpretation; extrinsic evidence when ambiguous)
Shorter v. Shorter, 851 N.E.2d 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (contract interpretation; plain meaning of terms)
Perryman v. Motorist Mut. Ins. Co., 846 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (unambiguous policy provisions void insufficient limitation)