Suit Limitations Clause Enforced Over Homeowner’s Waiver Claim

By Don R. Sampen, published, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, June 2, 2026

The 4th District Appellate Court recently enforced a policy suit limitation provision, resulting in the denial of coverage for an insured homeowner. It did so despite the insured’s claim that the insurer had waived or should have been estopped from enforcing the one-year limitation period.

The case is Conant v. MemberSelect Insurance Co., 2026 IL App (4th) 251034-U (May 6). The insured, Susan Conant, was represented by the Iavarone Law Firm in Chicago. Best Vanderlaan & Harrington in Chicago represented the insurer, MemberSelect.

After Conant’s home sustained hail damage in June 2023, she filed a claim with MemberSelect, her homeowner’s insurer. Her policy contained a provision requiring that any suit brought against the company must be filed “within one year after the loss or damage occurs,” with that time period to be extended only for the number of days that the company might take to respond to a proof of loss.

MemberSelect sent an adjuster to review the damage. Although a dispute arose over what the inspector said at the time of the inspection and what he reported to MemberSelect, the insurer ultimately denied coverage. In the process, the company informed Conant of the one-year period in which to file suit.

Shortly before the June 29, 2024, deadline, MemberSelect agreed to perform a further inspection, and it continued to communicate with Conant thereafter but maintained its denial of coverage. Ultimately, Conant did not file this lawsuit over coverage until April 2025.

Her complaint alleged breach of contract, bad faith and fraud in the inducement. MemberSelect moved to dismiss on the basis of the one-year limitation provision, and the trial court granted its motion. Conant then appealed.

Analysis

In an opinion by Justice Amy C. Lannerd, the 4th District affirmed. In doing so, Lannerd addressed Conant’s two main arguments pertaining to suit limitations provisions: waiver and estoppel.

The first argument was based on MemberSelect’s implied waiver when it agreed to reinspect the roof, communications with Conant and the review of her claim after the June 29, 2024, deadline had passed. Conant contended that unless the company had waived the one-year limitation, there was nothing to review.

Lannerd found, however, that these facts were not sufficient to create a fact issue regarding waiver. She pointed out that Conant was MemberSelect’s customer and the insurer had at least two reasons for continuing to review information, namely customer satisfaction and customer retention.

This was not, moreover, a situation where MemberSelect was demanding more information from Conant after the deadline. Rather, it simply agreed to consider information Conant provided.

In addition, Lannerd wrote that MemberSelect had informed Conant of the deadline for her to file suit, so this was not a situation where it would be unconscionable to allow the insurer to assert the limitation provision.

With respect to Conant’s argument based on estoppel, which requires detrimental reliance, Lannerd observed that, having been expressly informed of the suit deadline, Conant could not reasonably rely on the insurer’s agreement to reinspect her roof as having the effect of tolling the deadline.

This also was not like a case relied on by Conant where the insurer denied the plaintiff’s claim based on a failure to provide information needed to process the claim, and where the insurer apparently had equivocated with respect to whether the claim was covered.

Rather MemberSelect here made its determination to deny coverage after its investigation and conclusion that the damage was not covered.

Having rejected both arguments, the court affirmed the dismissal in favor of MemberSelect.

Key Point

An insurer’s agreement to reinspect claimed damage and to communicate with the insured about the damage after a suit limitation deadline has passed does not, in and of itself, give rise to a waiver or estoppel with respect to enforcement of the deadline.