Opinion
2021-03550 2020-04401
06-08-2021
Monica Iken-Murphy et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State Farm Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent. Index No. 150094/17 Appeal No. 14034
Monica Iken-Murphy and Robert Murphy, appellants pro se. Feldman, Rudy, Kirby & Farquharson, P.C., Jericho (Brian R. Rudy of counsel), for respondent.
Monica Iken-Murphy and Robert Murphy, appellants pro se.
Feldman, Rudy, Kirby & Farquharson, P.C., Jericho (Brian R. Rudy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Webber, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Gonzalez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn, III, J.), entered on or about September 1, 2020, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment and declared that defendant is not required to indemnify plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly enforced the provision of the insurance policy setting a two-year statute of limitations as reasonable (see Blitman Constr. Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 66 N.Y.2d 820, 822 [1985]). Insurance policies are permitted to specify a limitations period running from the occurrence of a loss event (Marguiles v Quaker City Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 276 A.D. 695, 700 [1st Dept 1950]). Here, there is no reason presented not to enforce the policy's unambiguous limitation provision.
Plaintiffs' contention that defendant's action effectively lulled them into complacency is also unavailing, as there is no evidence that defendant intentionally relinquished its right to enforce the limitation period (Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966, 968 [1988]).