Nunheimer v. Continental Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that two-year statute of limitations applied because plaintiffs claims under Chapters 93A and 176D are undoubtedly claims that exist “by virtue of the policy” and were therefore time-barred
• affirming summary judgment pursuant to section 99 for insurance claim seeking recovery for contaminants released from underground storage tanks
• summary judgment for defendant insurer allowed where plaintiff failed to file suit under fire insurance policy within two years after loss
• “loss” means the “incident causing the damage to the property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).