The court found nothing in the correspondence which could lull the plaintiff into believing that his claim would be paid. Where the inducement for delay has ceased to operate before the expiration of the limitation period and the plaintiff has a reasonable time remaining within which to institute his suit, he cannot raise estoppel as an excuse for not filing his action within the time specified by the statute of limitations. Reat v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 47 Ill. App.2d 267, 197 N.E.2d 860; 53 CJS, Limitations of Action, § 25. Under the facts in the Dickirson case, the court properly found that there was no question of fact concerning waiver by estoppel. The defendant contends that the case of Devlin v. Wantroba, 72 Ill. App.2d 383, 218 N.E.2d 496, is similar to our case.

The legal principle upon which defendants' position relies has no application to the facts and issues presented in the case at bar. In the cases relied upon by defendants for the proposition that a plaintiff may not "split" causes of action among several lawsuits ( Reat v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1964), 47 Ill. App.2d 267, 197 N.E.2d 860; Melohn v. Ganley (1951), 344 Ill. App. 316, 100 N.E.2d 780; Deer v. New York Central R.R. Co. (7th Cir. 1953), 202 F.2d 625), the plaintiffs attempted tardy recovery for complications arising from obvious physical injuries originally sustained as a result of a single traumatic event. We assume, as we must upon this record, that asbestos-originating lung cancer is not a complication of asbestosis. Furthermore, asbestos-originating diseases are latent, caused by what was originally considered harmless exposure to the irritating agent ultimately leading to physical harm, and are therefore not the result of a single, traumatic event.

( 102 Ill. App.2d 218, 225.) In Reat v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1964), 47 Ill. App.2d 267, the court said that the general principles of equitable estoppel require the party asserting the estoppel to have relied on the act or representation and because of that reliance refrained from commencing an action within the limitations period; the conduct must have been of such character as to prevent inquiry, elude investigation, or mislead the party with the cause of action. ( 47 Ill. App.2d 267, 273.)

Relying on several cases applying state law, defendant contends that plaintiffs' seven-month period of inaction was too long a period, as a matter of law, to prevent application of the statute. The case of Reat v. Illinois Central R.R., 47 Ill. App.2d 267, 197 N.E.2d 860 (1964), is typical of the cases relied on by defendant Content. Reat differs from this case in two critical aspects, however.

Defendants argue that this delay negates any conclusion that plaintiff was lulled into a false security, since the inducement for delay ended in sufficient time for filing suit. Defendants cite Reat v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1964), 47 Ill. App.2d 267, 197 N.E.2d 860, in support of their argument. In Reat, plaintiff brought an action under the Federal Employer's Liability Act for injuries sustained on August 1, 1955, during the course of employment.

Accordingly, if the inducement for delay has ceased to operate sufficiently before the expiration of the limitation period so as to afford the plaintiffs ample time within such period to commence their action, then the plaintiff may not invoke the doctrine of estoppel. ( Sabath v. Morris Handler Co. (1968), 102 Ill. App.2d 218, 243 N.E.2d 723; Reat v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1964), 47 Ill. App.2d 267, 197 N.E.2d 860.) Here Century had eight months in which to file suit after any inducement for delay had passed. This, as a matter of law, was ample time.

Such testimony is evidence of conduct which exceeds mere investigation and negotiation and consequently an issue of fact was made for determination by a trier of fact. The mere fact that the last communication between the plaintiff and the insurance agent was approximately 3 months before the statute of limitations was to run is not determinative as a matter of law on the issue of estoppel. It is true, as stated in Reat v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1964), 47 Ill. App.2d 267, 197 N.E.2d 860, 864, that "[W]here the inducement for the delay * * * has ceased to operate before the expiration of the limitation period, so as to afford the plaintiff ample time thereafter in which to institute his action prior to the running of the statute of limitations, he cannot excuse his failure to do so on the ground of estoppel."

(See 105 Ill. App.2d at 24.) Reat v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 47 Ill. App.2d 267, 197 N.E.2d 860, is also cited by both parties. The appellate court there affirmed dismissal of the suit as barred by the statute of limitations.

(28 Am.Jur.2d 649-652, Estoppel and Waiver § 43; 18 Cal.Jur.2d, Rev., 422, Estoppel § 11; Worthen Bank Trust Co. v. Franklin Life Insurance Co. (E.D.Ark. 1966) 260 F. Supp. 1.) (1c) It will be noted that plaintiff in his second amended complaint did not allege, or at the time of demurrer did he request an opportunity to allege, that defendant knew or should have known of the claimed severity of plaintiff's injury; that defendant either negligently or intentionally concealed or misstated any such knowledge; or that defendant induced plaintiff not to file his lawsuit. In Reat v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (1964) 47 Ill. App.2d 267 [ 197 N.E.2d 860] an action was brought under the F.E.L.A. The appellate court sustained the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint on the ground that the statute of limitations had run and an estoppel was not sufficiently pleaded. It was there alleged that an employee's foot was injured August 1, 1955.

GM offers, in the alternative, the argument that even if its actions were found to have lulled the Fields into complaisance, the lulling activity ended with the June 9, 1992 letter denying any obligation. Because, according to GM's calculations, four weeks then remained in the statute of limitations period, the Fields had time to file suit and so cannot rely on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. See Reat v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 197 N.E.2d 860, 864-65 (Ill.App.Ct. 1964). Since the evidence does not support the Fields' reading of GM's acceptance of an obligation, no lulling occurred.