9 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gagner v. Strekourasgreen2 sentences2010However, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has recognized that in exceptional circumstances, "settlement negotiations can estop a party from invoking the statute of limitations if accompanied `by certain statements or conduct calculated to lull the claimant into a reasonable belief that his claim will be settled without a suit.'" McAdam v. Grzelczyk , 911 A.2d 255 , 259 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Gagner , 423 A.2d at 1169 ). 2009MRP does not contend nor did the second hearing officer find that DLT made any statements during the telephone conversation with Gaulin while Breton was on vacation that would have lulled her into a reasonable belief that the timelines would be extended. 8 See generally McAdam v. Grzelczyk , *Page 15 911 A.2d 255 , 259-60 (R.I. 2006) (holding insurance company not equitably estopped from raising statute of limitations defense when company did not deceive plaintiff into believing settlement would occur); Gagner v. Strekouras , 423 A.2d 1168 , 1169 (R.I. 1980) (recognizing estoppel may prevent s | 2 | 5 |
Greater Providence Trust Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.green2 sentences2009MRP does not contend nor did the second hearing officer find that DLT made any statements during the telephone conversation with Gaulin while Breton was on vacation that would have lulled her into a reasonable belief that the timelines would be extended. 8 See generally McAdam v. Grzelczyk , *Page 15 911 A.2d 255 , 259-60 (R.I. 2006) (holding insurance company not equitably estopped from raising statute of limitations defense when company did not deceive plaintiff into believing settlement would occur); Gagner v. Strekouras , 423 A.2d 1168 , 1169 (R.I. 1980) (recognizing estoppel may prevent s 2009MRP does not contend nor did the second hearing officer find that DLT made any statements during the telephone conversation with Gaulin while Breton was on vacation that would have lulled her into a reasonable belief that the timelines would be extended. 8 See generally McAdam v. Grzelczyk , *Page 15 911 A.2d 255 , 259-60 (R.I. 2006) (holding insurance company not equitably estopped from raising statute of limitations defense when company did not deceive plaintiff into believing settlement would occur); Gagner v. Strekouras , 423 A.2d 1168 , 1169 (R.I. 1980) (recognizing estoppel may prevent s | 1 | 5 |
McAdam v. Grzelczykgreen2 sentences2010However, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has recognized that in exceptional circumstances, "settlement negotiations can estop a party from invoking the statute of limitations if accompanied `by certain statements or conduct calculated to lull the claimant into a reasonable belief that his claim will be settled without a suit.'" McAdam v. Grzelczyk , 911 A.2d 255 , 259 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Gagner , 423 A.2d at 1169 ). 2009MRP does not contend nor did the second hearing officer find that DLT made any statements during the telephone conversation with Gaulin while Breton was on vacation that would have lulled her into a reasonable belief that the timelines would be extended. 8 See generally McAdam v. Grzelczyk , *Page 15 911 A.2d 255 , 259-60 (R.I. 2006) (holding insurance company not equitably estopped from raising statute of limitations defense when company did not deceive plaintiff into believing settlement would occur); Gagner v. Strekouras , 423 A.2d 1168 , 1169 (R.I. 1980) (recognizing estoppel may prevent s | 1 | 4 |
Flagler v. Wessmangreen2 sentences1976Therefore, these negotiations will not amount to estoppel unless they are accompanied by certain statements or conduct “* * * calculated to lull the *273 claimant into a reasonable belief that his claim will be settled without suit.” Flagler v. Wessman, 130 Ill. 1976App. 2d 491, 494 , 263 N.E.2d 630, 632 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nationall Refrigeration, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America
green
2 sentences2017It is true that “[i]n exceptional circumstances, settlement negotiations can estop a party from invoking the statute of limitations if accompanied ‘by certain statements or conduct calculated to lull the claimant into a reasonable belief that his claim will be settled without a suit.’ ” National Refrigeration, Inc., 947 A.2d at 911 (quoting McAdam v. Grzelczyk, 911 A.2d 256 , 269 (R.I. 2006)). 2010Our Supreme Court has recently reiterated that this exception to the statute of limitations, known as the doctrine of equitable estoppel, may arise in two scenarios: "`(1) [where] the insurer, by his actions or communications, has assured the claimant that a settlement would be reached, thereby inducing a late filing, or (2) [where] the insurer has intentionally continued and prolonged the negotiations in order to cause the claimant to let the limitation pass without commencing suit.'" National Refrigeration, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of America , 947 A.2d 906 , 911 (R.I. 2008) (quot | 2 | 2010–2017 |
Astors' Beechwood v. People Coal Co.
green
1 sentence2009It is well-settled that unexplained neglect does not "excuse noncompliance with orderly procedural requirements." Astors' Beechwood v. People Coal Co. , 659 A.2d 1109 , 1115 (R.I. 1995). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.