Case Explained: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JOSE A. NADER, M.D v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-17

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of New York Life Insurance Company, holding that Jose A. Nader’s breach of contract claims regarding cost-of-living adjustments were time-barred. The court determined that both Ohio’s statutory limitations period under § 2305.06 of the Ohio Revised Code and the policy’s contractual limitations period had expired before Nader filed suit in 2023. The court applied the standard that a plaintiff must bring an action within the applicable limitations period, which begins when the plaintiff has actual knowledge of the alleged breach. The opinion found that Nader acquired actual knowledge of the specific terms of the Cost-of-Living Benefit Rider and the company’s calculation method as early as 2002, well over fifteen years prior to filing. Consequently, the statutory limitations period had long run. Regarding the contractual limitations period, which required suit within three years of when proof of loss was required, the court held that Nader’s claim was also untimely. The court rejected Nader’s argument for a “continuing breach” or “installment theory,” reasoning that his complaint did not allege New York Life violated the contract’s terms with each payment, but rather challenged the inclusion of the rider itself and its continuing effects. Under Ohio law, as established in *State ex rel. Nickoli v. Erie MetroParks*, the continuing effects of a prior violation do not toll the statute of limitations for breach of contract actions. Additionally, the court declined to address Nader’s arguments regarding equitable tolling due to illness or fraud, noting he had forfeited these claims by failing to raise them in the district court. The practical consequence is that Nader’s lawsuit against New York Life Insurance Company was dismissed, and the judgment entered below stands, preventing him from recovering damages for the alleged miscalculation of his disability benefits under the 1991 policy.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.