IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ANN MARIE HARRISON, 

as Personal Representative of the 

Estate of Richard John Harrison,

deceased, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-60/RS-GRJ

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE

COMPANY OF BOSTON and

WYLE LABORATORIES, INC.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me are Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 19 & 20) and Plaintiff’s 

Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 24). 

Standard of Review

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, which 

accepted as true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 

S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569, 127 S. Ct. 

1955, 1974 (2007). Granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate if it is clear that no relief 

could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the 

allegations of the complaint. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S. Ct. 

2229, 2232 (1984). In making this determination, the court must accept all factual 

Case 5:11-cv-00060-RS-GRJ Document 27 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 5
allegations in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. 

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406, 122 S. Ct. 2179, 2182 (2003).

Discussion

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) fails for two 

reasons. First, Defendants contend that Count II-Breach of Fiduciary Duties is barred as 

a matter of law (Doc. 19, p. 5). Plaintiff has accepted this contention in her response 

(Doc. 24, p.2, n. 2). Second, Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs claims are barred by 

the contractual limitations clause and/or the statute of limitations. 

Regardless of the choice of law provision in this policy, the “limitations period in 

an insurance contract is generally enforced under federal law unless it is unreasonable or 

fundamentally unfair.” Wang Lab. v. Kagan, 990 F.2d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 1993).

Accord Northlake Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Waffle House Sys. Emple. Benefit Plan, 160 F.3d 

1301, 1303 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Contractual limitations periods on ERISA actions are 

enforceable, regardless of state law, provided they are reasonable.”). 

The provision in question (Doc. 13, Attach. 1, Exhibit C, § 7) provides the 

following: 

A claimant or the claimant’s authorized representative cannot start any legal action

1. until 60 days after Proof of claim has been given; or

2. more than one year after the time Proof of claim is required. 

Legal actions are contingent upon first having followed the Claims and Appeals 

procedure outlined in this policy. 

The policy defines “Proof” as “the evidence in support of a claim for 

benefits” which includes a claim form completed by a covered employee’s beneficiary, 

Case 5:11-cv-00060-RS-GRJ Document 27 Filed 05/27/11 Page 2 of 5
and a certified copy of a death certificate. Id. at § 2. Under the section entitled “Notice 

and Proof of Claim,” id. at § 7, the policy provides the following: 

1. Notice

a. Notice of claim must be given to Liberty within 30 days of the date of the 

loss on which the claim is based...

b. When written notice of claim is applicable and has been received by 

Liberty, the covered person will be sent claim forms. If the forms are not 

received within 15 days after written notice of claim is sent, the covered 

person can send to Liberty written Proof of claim without waiting for the 

forms. 

2. Proof

a. Satisfactory Proof of loss must be given to Liberty no later than 30 days 

after the date of loss

b. Failure to furnish such Proof within such time shall not invalidate or reduce 

any claim if it was not reasonably possible to furnish such Proof within 

such time. Such Proof must be furnished as soon as reasonably possible, 

and in no event . . . later than one year from the time Proof is otherwise 

required. 

Plaintiff makes two arguments why the contractual limitations period does not bar 

her claim. First, Plaintiff argues that the plain meaning of this agreed upon limitations 

period allows legal action to be commenced if brought either after 60 days from proof of 

claim having been given or less than one year after proof of claim is required (Doc. 24, p. 

5-6). That is, the “or” connecting the two requirements should be read to mean that a suit 

may be brought if either of the provisions are met. Reading the clause in this fashion 

would make it meaningless by allowing commencement of a legal action at any time: no 

claim could be filed too early or too late. 

The only reasonable interpretation, the one that is plain from the face of the policy, 

is that the limitations clause defines a period of time from the earliest to the latest of 

Case 5:11-cv-00060-RS-GRJ Document 27 Filed 05/27/11 Page 3 of 5
when a legal action may commence. In other words, a claimant must wait at least 60 

days after proof of claim has been given, but cannot wait more than one year after the 

time proof of claim is required. 

Plaintiff next asserts that the limitations clause is meaningless because the term 

“proof of claim” is not defined in the policy (Doc. 24, p. 6). The argument goes that 

there can be no way to figure the limitations period because “proof of claim” is not 

defined. Plaintiff is mistaken. The real term at issue is “Proof” and not “proof of claim.” 

The term “Proof” is defined and whether it is used in the context as “Proof of claim” or 

“Proof of loss” makes no difference. It is important to note that “Proof” is with a 

capitalized “P” and the words “claim” and “loss” are not. This supports the notion that 

“Proof” is the operative word and the other modifying words are not. 

The limitations period provides that a claim cannot be made “more than one year 

after the time Proof of claim is required.” The policy provides that “Satisfactory Proof of 

loss must be given to Liberty no later than 30 days after the date of loss.” From this 

simple tautology, a claim cannot be made more than one year plus 30 days from the date 

of loss. 

In certain circumstances, the policy grants additional time beyond the 30 days for 

Proof-filing if it is not “reasonably possibly” to meet that deadline. However, the policy 

provides that in “no event” may the Proof be submitted “later than one year from the time 

Proof is otherwise required.” Under this more generous scenario, a claim would be 

allowed for an additional year beyond the normal requirement. 

Case 5:11-cv-00060-RS-GRJ Document 27 Filed 05/27/11 Page 4 of 5
Here, the decedent died on December 31, 2005 (Doc. 13, p.1). Plaintiff provided 

the evidence in support of a claim for benefits - - what the policy calls “Proof” - - on 

August 8, 2006. Id. at 3. Defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston issued a 

“partial settlement of the Group Life Insurance claim in the amount of $365,592.33” on 

February 9, 2007. Id. Plaintiff initiated this legal action in state court in January 2011 

(Doc. 1, Attach. 1). 

Even under the most generous standards, the filing of the lawsuit was five years 

from the decedent’s death, more than four years from the filing of Proof, and more than 

three years from the partial settlement. No matter what the measuring date, and given 

the expanded Proof deadline, the contractual limitations period has expired. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 19 & 20) are GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

3. The Clerk is directed to close the file. 

ORDERED on May 27, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00060-RS-GRJ Document 27 Filed 05/27/11 Page 5 of 5