United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 40)
KARI
A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Preliminary
Statement of the Case
This
insurance coverage dispute was brought by the Plaintiff,
Elaine Discuillo, against her homeowner's property
insurance provider, Defendant Allstate Insurance Company. The
Plaintiff claims that the Defendant breached its contract of
insurance when it failed to pay for damage to her home
allegedly caused by a snow and/or ice storm. Originally filed
in state court, the matter was removed by the Defendant to
this Court on February 14, 2017. In her revised complaint,
the Plaintiff seeks specific performance of the appraisal
provision of her insurance contract in Count One and damages
for breach of contract in Count Two. The Defendant moved for
summary judgment on both counts, arguing that the
Plaintiff's suit is barred by the insurance policy's
eighteen-month suit limitations provision and because the
Plaintiff failed to timely notify the Defendant of her claim.
In response, the Plaintiff does not substantively challenge
the enforceability of the suit limitations provision or
address the timeliness of her notice of claim. Instead, she
argues that the Court should grant her then-pending motion to
compel and stay litigation. Following the parties'
briefing on this matter, Judge Shea denied the
Plaintiff's motion to compel and stay litigation on
August 3, 2018. For the reasons set forth below, the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Standard
of Review
The
standard under which the Court reviews motions for summary
judgment is well-established. “The court shall grant
summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The
Court's inquiry focuses on “whether there is the
need for a trial-whether, in other words, there are any
genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by
a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in
favor of either party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). Once the movant meets
his burden, the nonmoving party must set forth
“‘specific facts' demonstrating that there is
‘a genuine issue for trial.'” Wright v.
Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). “[T]he party opposing summary
judgment may not merely rest on the allegations or denials of
his pleading” to establish the existence of a disputed
fact. Wright, 554 F.3d at 266; accord Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
However, until the moving party comes forward with evidence
that would establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter
of law, the non-moving party is under no obligation to
produce any evidence. Amaker v. Foley, 274 F.3d 677,
681 (2d Cir. 2001).
Facts
The
following material facts are either undisputed, admitted, or
construed favorably to the Plaintiff. The Defendant provided
homeowners insurance to the Plaintiff covering the
Plaintiff's home at 375 Norwich Salem Turnpike in
Oakdale, Connecticut. The policy at issue here covered the
property from September 28, 2014 to September 28, 2015. On or
about February 10, 2015, a winter storm damaged the
Plaintiff's home. In the spring of 2015, a friend of the
Plaintiff's applied sealant to the roof around a bathroom
skylight, in an unsuccessful attempt to fix a leak
purportedly caused by the storm damage. The Plaintiff also
tried to spackle or putty certain spots in that bathroom but
did not immediately do anything to repair the damage to two
upstairs bedrooms.Later, in the summer of 2015, the Plaintiff
contacted a contractor, Michael Hancin
(“Hancin”), but he did not visit the
Plaintiff's property until April 2016. The Plaintiff
“waited” on calling him out to the property
because she “thought [she] had to have the deductible
for [her] insurance policy and money for [the
contractor]” and “had to save up.”
The
Plaintiff first filed an insurance claim with the Defendant
on April 26, 2016. An adjuster for the Defendant, Dale
Laprise (“Laprise”), inspected the property on
May 13, 2016 and June 2, 2016. Noting some limited staining
consistent with prior ice damming along the exterior walls of
some of the rooms, Laprise estimated a $9, 077.36 repair
cost. After applying the recoverable depreciation and the
policy's deductible, the Laprise issued the Plaintiff a
check for $4, 591.64. The Plaintiff later commenced suit
against the Defendant in January 2017, serving the Defendant
on January 23, 2017.
The
policy at issue contains a suit limitations provision,
expressly limiting the time for filing an action against the
Defendant. That provision provides in relevant part:
Section
I - Conditions
Suit
Against Us
No suit
or action may be brought against us unless there has been
full compliance with all policy terms. Any suit or action
must be brought within eighteen months after the inception of
loss or damage.
The
policy also contains a provision detailing what steps an
insured must take following a loss. That provision provides
in relevant part:
Section
...