Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority v Dongbu Insurance Company Ltd [2001] GUSC 24; 2001 Guam 24 (3 December 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

GUAM HOUSING AND URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (GHURA),
A Public Body Corporate And Politic,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

DONGBU INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.
(fka KOREA AUTOMOBILE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD.)
Defendant-Appellee

Supreme Court Case No. CVA00-029
Superior Court Case No. CV0183-95

OPINION

Filed: December 3, 2001

Cite as: 2001 Guam 24

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on September 11, 2001
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for the Plaintiff: Daniel J. Berman, Esq. Berman, O'Connor & Mann Suite 503, Bank of Guam Bldg. 111 Chalan Santo Papa Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for the Defendant-Appellee: Thomas C. Sterling, Esq. Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson Suite 1008, Pacific News Bldg. 238 Archbishop F.C. Flores St. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Chief Justice, F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice, and BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ, Justice Pro Tempore.

SIGUENZA, C.J.:

[1] Plaintiff-Appellant Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (hereinafter AGHURA@) filed suit against Defendant-Appellee Dongbu Insurance Company, Ltd. (hereinafter ADongbu@) seeking payment on an insurance claim. The lower court granted Dongbu's motion for summary judgment upon a finding that the policy's provision, requiring all claims to be filed within one year after the inception of loss, barred GHURA's claim. GHURA argues that the doctrine of equitable tolling prevented the contractual statute of limitations from running and therefore the filing of its claim was timely. We adopt the doctrine of equitable tolling and find that there are genuine issues of material fact in this case. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

I.

[2] On August 8, 1993, an earthquake measuring 8.1 on the Richter scale struck Guam. At the time of the earthquake, GHURA carried a fire insurance policy whose terms covered damage sustained in an earthquake. The policy was provided by Korea Automobile Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., now operating as Dongbu. The policy in effect, No. KMF-1820, contained two provisions that are in dispute in the instant case. The first required GHURA to file a sworn proof of loss, detailing the value and amount of damages being claimed, within sixty days of the date of loss. The second, and perhaps more important, was a contractual statute of limitations, requiring an insured to file suit against Dongbu within twelve months of the date of loss.

[3] Eight days after the earthquake struck, GHURA submitted a signed proof of loss to Dongbu, giving Dongbu initial notice that GHURA was claiming damages suffered in the earthquake. Cresencio Anas, an adjuster for Dongbu, contacted GHURA and requested a listing of the specific areas and houses that sustained earthquake damage so that Dongbu could inspect them. On October 5, 1993, GHURA submitted a thirteen page report to Dongbu, identifying the individual buildings and briefly describing the nature of the damages. GHURA informed Dongbu that the listing was not final and that further unit-to-unit inspections of the houses would be conducted to detail the damages. Dongbu did not object or deny liability. Neither the submitted proof of loss or the supplemental report included a dollar claim.

[4]