Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the statute of limitations barred Polina Tertyshnaya, the widow of Philadelphia Flyer’s hockey player Dmitri Tertyshny, from pursuing a claim against her late husband’s insurers for accidental death proceeds.

Dmitri died in a tragic boating accident in July of 1999. At the time, he was in Canada for Flyer’s summer training camp. Dmirtri left behind Polina, who was four months pregnant at the time of his dead.

Sometime in the months before Dmitri’s death, he purchased an insurance policy from Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York (“SSLIC”), HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc. (“HCC”), and American Specialty Underwriters, Inc. (“ASU”). Although Polina believed the policy included coverage for permanent total disability (“PTD”) and accidental death and dismemberment (“AD&D”), the insurers maintain that the policy was only for PTD coverage.

Beginning May 27, 2010, nearly 11 years after Dmitri’s death, Polina took legal action against the insurers, Dmitri’s agent, his employer, the insurance broker for his policy, and his company (collectively, the “defendants”). Polina alleged that the defendants intentionally hide Dmitri’s AD&D policy to avoid paying her death benefits. Polina alleged the defendants committed acts of concealment by issuing an insurance policy for PTD, as opposed to AD&D coverage, on August 30, 1999 and backdating it to March 1, 1999.

Unfortunately for Polina, the trial court dismissed her case. The court determined that even though Polina may have held the belief that she was entitled to AD&D since Dmitri’s death in 1999—and even employed three attorneys to investigate the matter—she did not file a claim for death benefits until 2010. In fact, Polina did not obtain a copy of her late husband’s insurance policy until after she filed suit.

Upon Appeal, the Superior Court rejected Polina’s claims that misrepresentations made by the defendants tolled the statute of limitations. Judge Christine L. Donohue explained, “[d]espite the fact that Tertyshnaya [Polina] has consistently maintained, since 1999, the belief that Tertyshny’s [Dmitri’s] policy contained AD&D coverage, she failed to use all reasonable diligence to become properly informed of the facts upon which her potential right of recovery is based.”  In the end, Polina’s failure to bring suit in the 11 years after her husband’s death was fatal to her claims.

Based upon this language, we surmise that the post-decision phone discussion between Polina and her attorneys was not a pleasant one.

Thanks to Erica Woebse for her contribution to this post.