Harrington

Harrington v. American Economy Insurance

Good Law
131 F. App'x 573
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 16, 2005No. 03-36045; D.C. No. CV 03-0712 MWMCalifornia381 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

In 2003, Robert Harrington brought suit against his former insurer, American Economy Insurance Company (“American Economy”), seeking compensation for losses caused by employee theft, which was covered under businessowner’s insurance *574 policies in effect between 1989 and 2000. The district court granted' summary judgment in favor of American Economy because the policies contained a suit-limitation provision that prevented Harrington from recovering for losses that occurred more than two years before the date he filed suit. Harrington argues that the district court’s interpretation of the suit-limitation provision runs contrary to Oregon’s strong policy in favor of recovery and that the provision should be subject to a “discovery” rule. We disagree and affirm the district court.

On its face, the suit-limitation provision limits recovery for losses more than two years old. The policy provision states: “No one may bring a legal action against us under this insurance unless ... [t]he action is brought within 2 years after the date on which the direct physical loss or damage occurred.”

Oregon law requires that all fire insurance policies contain a suit-limitation…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.