Evanston Insurance Co. v. William Kramer & Associates, LLC, No. 16-2082 (2d Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The insurer appealed from the district court's judgment in favor of the adjuster. At issue was whether the district court erred in overturning the jury verdict and granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the adjuster on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the statute of limitations was tolled such that the insurer's claim was timely filed.

The Second Circuit certified a question of law to the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding the contours of the doctrine that tolls a limitation period because of a continuing course of conduct. The state court responded that the evidence was not legally sufficient to toll the statute of limitations on this factual record. Accordingly, because the state court's decision resolved the controlling question of Connecticut law, the court affirmed the judgment.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 10, 2018.

Download PDF
16-2082 Evanston Insurance Co. v. William Kramer & Associates, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2017 (Argued: August 18, 2017 Decided: June 11, 2019) Docket No. 16 2082 _____________________________________ Evanston Insurance Company, Plaintiff Appellant, v. William Kramer & Associates, LLC, Defendant Appellee. _____________________________________ Before: PIERRE N. LEVAL, REENA RAGGI, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Michael P. Shea, J.) granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff, successor in interest to an insurer of property damaged by a hurricane, brought this negligence action against Defendant, the Plaintiff’s loss adjustment agent, for failure to inform it of a mortgage on the property. The suit was filed after the three year limitations period imposed by § 52 577 of the Connecticut General Statutes. At trial, a jury found that the limitation period was tolled by reason of the Defendant’s continuing course of conduct. The district court set aside the jury’s verdict, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support tolling. We certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court the question whether the “trial evidence [was] legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding” of tolling. The Connecticut Supreme Court held, Essex Ins. Co. v. William Kramer & Assocs., LLC, 331 Conn. 493 (2019), that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support tolling. We now affirm the district court’s judgment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MARY MASSARON, Plunkett Cooney, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiff Appellant. RICHARD A. SIMPSON (Kimberly A. Ashmore, on the brief), Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Appellee. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Evanston Insurance Company (hereinafter the “Plaintiff” or 12 the “Insurer”) appeals from the entry of judgment by the United States 13 District Court for the District of Connecticut (Michael P. Shea, J.) in favor of 14 defendant William Kramer & Associates, LLC (hereinafter the “Defendant” or 15 the “Adjuster”), which served as the Insurer’s adjuster on a claim for 16 hurricane damage. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred 17 in overturning the jury verdict and granting judgment as a matter of law in 18 favor of Adjuster on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence to support the 19 jury’s conclusion that the statute of limitations was tolled such that Insurer’s 20 claim was timely filed. We assume the parties familiarity with our earlier 21 opinion in this matter, which discusses at length the underlying facts, 22 procedural history, and arguments presented on appeal. Evanston Ins. Co. v. 23 William Kramer & Assocs., LLC, 890 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2018). We repeat them here 2 1 only insofar as we think it necessary to understand the discussion that 2 follows. 3 After a jury trial, the jury found that the Adjuster had “engaged in a 4 continuing course of conduct such that [its] duty to [the Insurer] continued in 5 a manner that tolled the statute of limitations for enough time that [the 6 Insurer’s] claim is not time barred.” Essex Ins. Co. v. William Kramer & Assocs., 7 Inc., No. 3:13 CV 1537 (MPS), 2016 WL 3198190, at *7 (D. Conn. June 8, 2016). 8 The jury awarded the Insurer damages for negligence in the amount of 9 $1,250,002.89. Id. at *1. 10 The Adjuster then moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), arguing that the record contained 12 insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that a continuing course of 13 conduct had tolled the statute of limitations. The district court ruled that “no 14 reasonable jury could find, based on the evidence presented at trial, that the 15 continuing course of conduct doctrine renders [Evanston’s] claim timely,” id. 16 at *7, and entered judgment for the Adjuster. The Insurer timely appealed. 17 18 We found that Connecticut law was unclear as to the contours of the doctrine that tolls a limitation period because of a continuing course of 3 1 conduct. Having the consent of the parties for certification of the controlling 2 question to the Connecticut Supreme Court, we asked for that Court’s 3 guidance on whether, under Connecticut law, the trial evidence was legally 4 sufficient to support the tolling of the limitation period through October 21, 5 2010, so as to render the Insurer’s claim timely. Evanston Ins. Co., 890 F.3d at 6 51. 7 8 23, 2019, responded that “the evidence is not legally sufficient to toll the 9 statute of limitations on this factual record.” Essex Ins. Co. v. William Kramer & The Connecticut Supreme Court accepted the certification, and on April 10 Assocs., LLC, 331 Conn. 493, 497 (2019). 11 12 question of Connecticut law. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the 13 district court. The Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision resolves the controlling 4
Primary Holding
After certifying a question of law to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the state court responded that the evidence was not legally sufficient to toll the statute of limitations on this factual record.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.