On November 5, 2000, Thomas Rak (Rak) reported to the police that some property (mostly electronics and jewelry) were missing from his home.. Rak also gave the police information about a party he suspected of committing the burglary. Rak had a homeowner's policy issued by Safeco Insurance Company Of America (Safeco) and he reported the burglary to them after contacting the police.

On November 7, 2000, a letter from Safeco asked Rak to send in a copy of the police report and told him about a need to take a recorded statement. Rak admits receiving this letter. On November 15, 2000, the police questioned the burglary suspect mentioned by Rak and the suspect confessed. He returned most of the merchandise that he hadn't already sold. On November 22, 2000, the Safeco adjuster sent another letter, advising that if he did not hear from Rak within ten days, he would assume that Rak did not want to pursue the claim and that the claim file would be closed. Rak later claimed he never received this letter. On February 7, 2001, Safeco sent a letter to Rak, stating that the policy would not be renewed in March, due to the loss and other information. Rak called Safeco on May 1, 2001, spoke with a Mr. Wantia and asked why he had not heard anything from Safeco about the claim. He called them again on June 21, 2001 and updated them about the recovery of property and the conviction of the burglar. Finally, on September 19, 2001, Rak again contacted Safeco and spoke with Mr. Clark, who suggested to Rak that "he should hire an attorney." Rak took the advice and hired one.

On July 7, 2003, Rak filed a complaint against Safeco alleging breach of contract and seeking damages of $10,540. Safeco filed an answer, denying Rak's allegations and filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming the one year statute of limitations provision in the homeowners policy had expired. Rak filed a brief in opposition claiming that Safeco had either waived or was estopped from claiming the limitation provision based on its conduct. The trial court granted Safeco's motion for summary judgment. Rak filed a motion for relief from judgment, which was denied. Rak appealed, stating that the trial court erred by granting the summary judgment when genuine issues of fact existed and that Safeco had, in fact, waived its defense of contractual time limitations in the policy through its actions and conduct.

The appeals court found no documented evidence that Safeco ever formally declined the claim. Ohio statute requires that denials contain clear reference to the policy provision, condition or exclusion on which the denial is based. None of the telephone conversations between Rak and Safeco employees contained a clear expression of denial. The court concluded that Safeco waived the one-year contractual statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case back to them for further proceedings.

Thomas RAK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Safeco Insurance Company Of America, Defendant-Appellee. Ohio Court of Appeals. No. 84318. Filed November 11, 2004. Reversed and remanded. 2004 CCH Personal and Commercial Liability Cases. Paragraph 1051.