We decline to do so. This case is controlled by our prior decisions in Chichester v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 74 Conn. 510, 51 A. 545 (1902), and Vincent v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn., 74 Conn. 684, 51 A. 1066 (1902). In short, Chichester and Vincent held that the accidental failure of suit statute applies only to actions barred by an otherwise applicable statute of limitations, and not to an applicable contractual limitation period, irrespective of whether that period was required by a statutory form for an insurance policy.

Since a provision in a fire insurance policy requiring suit to be brought within one year of the loss is a valid contractual obligation, a failure to comply therewith is a defense to an action on the policy unless the provision has been waived or unless there is a valid excuse for nonperformance; and such a condition requiring suit to be brought within one year does not operate as a statute of limitations. Chichester v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 74 Conn. 510, 512-13, 51 A. 545; Chambers v. Atlas Ins. Co., 51 Conn. 17; Woodbury Savings Bank v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 31 Conn. 517, 529. See Sacks Realty Co., Inc. v. Newark Ins. Co., 34 Conn. Sup. 564, 565, 377 A.2d 858. This condition is a part of the contract so that it controls the rights of the parties under the contract and, hence, such rights must be governed by the rules of law applicable to contracts.

Connecticut courts have generally read 52-592 and analogous statutes to apply only to limitations provided by law and not to those provided by contract. Torello v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 27 Conn. App. 910, affirming 4 Conn. L. Rptr. 19, 606 A.2d 62 (1992); Sacks Realty Company, Inc. v. Newark Insurance Company, 34 Conn. Sup. 564, 377 A.2d 858 (1976); Chichester v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co., 74 Conn. 510, 514, 51 A. 545 (1902). Section 52-593a is an analogous statute in that it provides for a fifteen day extension where process is served after a statute of limitations has expired.

( Provident Fund Soc. v. Howell, 110 Ala. 508 [18 So. 311]; Daly v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co., 16 Colo. App. 349 [65 P. 416]; Chichester v. New Hampshire Fire Ins.Co., 74 Conn. 510 [ 51 A. 545]; Gibralter Fire Marine Ins.Co. v. Lanier, 64 Ga. App. 269 [13 S.W.2d 27]; Maxwell Bros. v. Liverpool etc. Ins. Co., 12 Ga. App. 127 [76 S.E. 1036]; McDaniel v. German-American Ins. Co., 134 Ga. 189 [67 S.E. 668]; Williams v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 98 Ga. 532 [25 S.E. 31]; Trichelle v. Sherman Ellis Inc., 259 Ill. App. 346; Western Coal etc. Co. v. Traders Ins. Co., 122 Ill. App. 138; Colonial Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Ellinger, 112 Ill. App. 302; Oakland Home Ins. Co. v. Allen, 1 Kan. App. 108 [40 P. 928]; State Ins. Co. of Des Moines v. Stoffels, 48 Kan. 205 [29 P. 479]; Smith v. Herd, 110 Ky. 56 [60 S.W. 841, 1121]; Owen v. Howard Ins. Co., 87 Ky. 571 [10 S.W. 119]; Guccione v. New Jersey Ins. Co. (La. App.) 167 So. 845; Tracy v. QueenCity F. Ins. Co., 132 La. 610 [61 So. 687, Ann.Cas. 1914D 1145]; Blanks v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 36 La. Ann. 599; Carraway v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 26 La. Ann. 298; Earnshaw v. SunMut. Aid Soc., 68 Md. 465 [12 A. 884, 6 Am.St.Rep. 460]; Metropoli

The evidence in the present case reviewed and the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict sustained. The case of Chichester v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 74 Conn. 510, explained and distinguished. Argued January 17th, 1917

We have recently held in a contract of insurance like this that no action which is commenced after the expiration of the time within which it is agreed any action shall be commenced, can be maintained, unless the performance of the condition to bring suit within the specified time is (1) rendered impossible through the existence of such facts as by the law of contract will excuse the performance of such a condition, or (2) is waived by the insurer, or (3) the insurer has been guilty of such conduct as in law will constitute an estoppel to the assertion of its nonperformance. Chichester v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 74 Conn. 510. Applying that decision to the case before us, it is clear that the allegations of paragraph eight are immaterial.

Green v. Royal Indemnity Co., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. CV 03 0283499 (June 8, 2004, Wiese, J.). See Chichester, Admr. v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 74 Conn. 510, 512-13, 51 A. 545 (1902); Monteiro v. American Home Assurance Co., 177 Conn. 281, 283, 416 A.2d 1189 (1979). Bocchino v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 246 Conn. 378, 383-84, 716 A.2d. 883 (1998).

Schlitz v. Lowell Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 96 Vt. 334, 119 A. 516; Bates v. German Commercial Accident Co., 87 Vt. 128, 88 A. 532, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 447. See, also, Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 7 Wall. 386, 19 L. Ed. 257. Unless the replication was properly sustained the delay in bringing suit on the policy is a complete defense to this suit. Wilson v. Aetna Ins. Co., 27 Vt. 99; Chichester v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 74 Conn. 510, 51 A. 545. It is, however, only a contractual limitation and may be waived by the insurer.

This court agrees with the Air Brake court that, in Monteiro and Bocchino, the Connecticut Supreme Court, although specifically addressing an insurance contract, clearly “endorse[d] the general proposition that [a contractual time limitation] amount[s] to ‘a valid contractual obligation.'” Air Brake, 699 F.Supp.2d at 472 (citing Monteiro, 177 Conn. at 283); accord Bocchino, 246 Conn. at 383 (explaining that a contractual time limitation is not a statute of limitations but rather “a part of the contract” such that “the rights of the parties flow from the contract, and must be governed by the rules of law applicable to contracts” (quoting Chichester v. N.H. Fire Ins. Co., 74 Conn. 510, 512-13 (1902))). Indeed, “the vast majority of states” have generally upheld contractual time limitations, see Air Brake, 699 F.Supp.2d at 472, and the United States Supreme Court has also recognized their validity under federal law, see Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 571 U.S. 99, 106-08 (2013)

"The Connecticut Supreme Court has long held that a contractual condition in an insurance policy requiring an action to be brought within a particular time period is . . . valid and binding upon the parties." PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Charter Oak Trust, No. HHDCV106012621S, 2012 WL 2044416, at *4 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 4, 2012) (citing Chichester v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 74 Conn. 510 (1902)). Though the contractual suit limitation is enforceable, it "does not operate as a statute of limitations."