(a) No action to recover damages for trespass, no action to regain possession of personal chattels, no action to recover damages for the detention of personal chattels, no action to recover a debt not evidenced by a record or by an instrument under seal, no action based on a detailed statement of the mutual demands in the nature of debit and credit between parties arising out of contractual or fiduciary relations, no action based on a promise, no action based on a statute, and no action to recover damages caused by an injury unaccompanied with force or resulting indirectly from the act of the defendant shall be brought after the expiration of 3 years from the accruing of the cause of such action; subject, however, to the provisions of §§ 8108-8110, 8119 and 8127 of this title.
(b) Contractual limitations. — Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a property insurance contract subject to subchapter III of Chapter 41 of Title 18:
(1) May not require that an action for a claim made under the contract be filed less than 1 year from the date of the denial of the claim by the insurer; and
(2) May permit an action for a claim made under the contract to be filed more than 1 year from the date of the denial of the claim by the insurer.
(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter (other than subsection (b) of this section) or in § 2-725 of Title 6, an action based on a written contract, agreement or undertaking involving at least $100,000 may be brought within a period specified in such written contract, agreement or undertaking provided it is brought prior to the expiration of 20 years from the accruing of the cause of such action.
Code 1852,
§
2742;
Code 1915,
§
4671;
Code 1935,
§
5129;
46 Del. Laws, c. 115,
§
1;
10 Del. C. 1953,
§
8106;
57 Del. Laws, c. 568,
§
2;
76 Del. Laws, c. 223,
§
2;
79 Del. Laws, c. 353,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Avins v. Moll, 610 F. Supp. 308 (E.D. Pa. 1984).
· cites it 6× “In the alternative, the three-year period for recovery of damages set forth in 10 Del.C. § 8106 would be applicable. In either case, Avins’ sixth and seventh causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations.”
Freedman v. Beneficial Corp., 406 F. Supp. 917 (D. Del. 1975).
· cites it 9× “10 Del.C. § 8106. 8 The five causes of action will be considered separately.”
NVF Co. v. New Castle Cnty., 276 B.R. 340 (D. Del. 2002).
· cites it 4× “10 Del. C. § 8106. Because the parties agree that the County began repairing the off-site force main at some point in 1987, and NVF’s last claim for off-site repair costs occurred at that time, NVF’s breach of contract claim brought in this case in 1999 is time-barred.”
Bridgeport Holdings Inc. v. Boyer (In Re Bridgeport Holdings Inc.), 388 B.R. 548 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008).
· cites it 2× “# 17) are denied in part and granted in part as follows: (1) To the extent that the Complaint asserts four separate “Challenged Actions”, two of those actions, namely, failing to put the Company up for sale earlier and *579 failing to hire a restructuring advisor earlier in…”
DeWitt v. Penn-Del Directory Corp., 872 F. Supp. 126 (D. Del. 1994).
· cites it 8× “6 Defendants assert that either 10 Del.C. § 8106 or 10 Del.C. § 8119 provides the most analogous statute of limitations for plaintiffs claim.”
Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC, 287 F. Supp. 3d 840 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“Other Conditions Under Delaware & Louisiana Law GM contends that Plaintiff Perkins (Delaware) does not allege if or when he complained to a GM dealer about excessive oil consumption, a complaint which would have started running the three-year limitations period under 10 Del.…”
TL of Florida, Inc. v. Terex Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D. Del. 2014).
· cites it 3× “B; see also 10 Del. C. § 8106 (providing three-year statute of limitations for actions founded on a promise)) The parties dispute, however, which statute of limitations applies to Counts I, II, and III.”
Dofflemyer v. W.F. Hall Printing Co., 558 F. Supp. 372 (D. Del. 1983).
· cites it 3× “§ 7323(e), but a three-year period for common law fraud, 10 Del.C. § 8106. The Third Circuit, in two recent cases, has delineated the path to be followed in making this choice.”
Resource Ventures, Inc. v. Resources Mgmt. Int'l, Inc., 42 F. Supp. 2d 423 (D. Del. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Statute of Limitations The Defendants further argue that all of the Plaintiffs claims are time-barred pursuant to 10 Del.C. § 8106. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs claims accrued in April 1993, when the Defendants entered into a contract with Perusa-haan Pertambangan…”
— 10 Del. C. § 8106(a) — 70 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 8106(c) — 9 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.