Phanta Daramy-Andrews v. Liberty Insurance Corporation

── Phanta Daramy-Andrews v. Liberty Insurance Corporation ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: April 09, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 25-7024 September Term, 2025 FILED ON: APRIL 9, 2026 PHANTA U. DARAMY-ANDREWS, APPELLANT v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:22-cv-01694) Before: MILLETT and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs of the parties. The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See FED. R. APP. P. 36; D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is: ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order of the district court issued on January 24, 2025, entering judgment in favor of appellee, be AFFIRMED. * * * In 2019, a burst pipe flooded Phanta Daramy-Andrews’ basement. Ms. Daramy-Andrews held a homeowner’s insurance policy from Liberty Insurance Corporation. Ms. Daramy-Andrews alleges that Liberty breached that policy and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when processing her claim for losses caused by the flood. A limitations clause in Liberty’s policy requires an insured to sue within a year of the event giving rise to a claim. Because Ms. Daramy- Andrews did not file suit against Liberty until three years after the flood, the district court granted summary judgment to Liberty. 1  Ms. Daramy-Andrews now appeals on three grounds. She argues, first, that the district court abused its discretion by allowing Liberty to amend its answer to include the limitations clause as an affirmative defense. Second, she argues that Liberty lulled her into filing suit beyond the limitations period or otherwise waived the limitations-clause defense. Third, she argues that her claim for breach of the implied covenant is not barred by the limitations clause. Because each of these arguments fails under the plain terms of the contract and settled law, we affirm. I On April 21, 2019, a pipe burst in Ms. Daramy-Andrews’ home. The resulting flood damaged her basement and personal property stored there. At the time, Ms. Daramy-Andrews held a homeowner’s insurance policy with Liberty that covered such flood damage. That policy required the insured to prepare a detailed “inventory of damaged personal property” and to submit a “sworn proof of loss” within 60 days of filing a claim. J.A. 90–91. Another policy term created a one-year limitations period for filing suit against Liberty: Suits Against Us. No action can be brought unless the policy provisions have been complied with and the action is started within one year after the date of loss. J.A. 92. When Ms. Daramy-Andrews timely submitted her insurance claim to Liberty, the company hired a contractor to store her personal property and started an investigation. During an October 2019 deposition conducted as part of that investigation, Ms. Daramy-Andrews and her counsel revealed that she had not inventoried her property as required by the insurance contract. The parties suspended the deposition so Ms. Daramy-Andrews could compile the inventory. In November, Liberty informed Ms. Daramy-Andrews that it had calculated her total losses at around $33,000 and paid her that amount minus adjustments for her deductible, prior payments by Liberty amounting to approximately $26,000, and other items.