The insured’s suit against the broker alleging insufficient coverage was dismissed as untimely. Elite Rental Properties, LLC, et al. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., et al., 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1704 (Aug. 26, 2026).
Elite retained Southern General Agency (SGA) and The Lincoln Agency, LLC to procure insurance coverage for multiple properties. SGA/Lincoln obtained a property insurance policy from Nautilus. The property had two structures, a single-family home and a rear structure, which contained a small apartment. Elite claimed that it understood the policy to cover both structures. On September 9, 2022, a fire caused catastrophic damage to the rear structure and exterior damage to the primary structure. Nautilus denied payment for the rear structure, claiming it was not covered in the policy.
Elite filed suit arguing that SGA/Lincoln had an obligation to review and analyze the insurance application and act with due diligence in securing all necessary coverage. SGA/Lincoln answered, raising affirmative defenses that the suit was untimely. SGA/Lincoln moved for summary judgment. The trail court agreed with SGA/Lincoln that the suit was untimely and granted summary judgment.
The Louisiana statute required a suit against an agent or broker for negligence be filed within one year. The one-year period began to run from the date the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the alleged act, omission, or neglect. An insured was on notice of any alleged claim or misrepresentation made regarding the sale of a policy and the statutory limitation period began to run when the insured received a copy of the policy.
Elite should have known of the insufficient coverage when it received the policy information and read the policy. The policy was issued January 31, 2022 and the premium was paid on February 4, 2022. The loss occurred on September 9, 2022, and Elite filed suit on September 8, 2023. This was over a year and a half after the policy was issued, well outside the one-year period provided by the statute.
Elite argued the limitation period should have begun to run in October 2022, when the claim was denied. However, the law stated that it began to run the day the insureds knew or should have known of the defective policy.
The lower court’s decision was affirmed