From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Varga v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 25, 1990
157 A.D.2d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 25, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chenango County (Ingraham, J.).


In November 1984, plaintiff sustained property damage to his premises in the Town of Bainbridge, Chenango County. Pursuant to the provisions of a homeowners insurance policy issued by defendant, plaintiff was paid $4,050.08 to cover his loss. In March 1988, plaintiff commenced this action claiming that additional money was owed him pursuant to the terms of the policy. After issue was joined, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was time barred. Condition 8 of the subject policy, as amended by the special provisions endorsement, provides, "No action shall be brought unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions and the action is started within two years after the occurrence causing loss or damage."

Plaintiff countered the limitations argument by claiming that the second cause of action set forth in the complaint states an action in tort based on defendant's bad faith in not paying him the full amount of his demand since defendant was fully reimbursed by the insurance carrier for the individual whose automobile caused the damage to plaintiff's property. Accordingly, plaintiff claims his second cause of action is based on tortious conduct for which the Statute of Limitations is three years. We disagree and affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint.

Although the gravamen of a cause of action generally determines the applicable Statute of Limitations, the broad language of the two-year contractual limitation period is binding (see, e.g., Wydallis v. United States Fid. Guar. Co., 63 N.Y.2d 872; 75 N.Y. Jur 2d, Limitations and Laches, § 9, at 177-179). Here, it is clear that the controversy arises out of and relates to the policy such that the two-year limitation set forth in the policy is applicable. Since the action was commenced more than two years after the occurrence, the complaint was properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Varga v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 25, 1990
157 A.D.2d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Varga v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:JULIAN VARGA, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 25, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
550 N.Y.S.2d 487

Citing Cases

Nikchemny v. Allstate Ins. Co.

N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 201; John J. Kassner & Co. v. City of N.Y., 46 N.Y.2d 544, 551 (1979). Although these…

Decker v. Broome Co-op. Ins. Co.

Defendant contends that this statute operated only to expand statutorily proscribed Statutes of Limitations…