An insured files written proof of loss on an Arizona individual health claim and sues the insurer 20 days later. In a separate case, another insured sues 3 years after written proof of loss was required. Under A.R.S. 20-1355, what happens?

Why A is correct

A.R.S. 20-1355 imposes both boundaries on legal action: no action before 60 days after written proof of loss, and no action after 2 years from the time proof was required. The first insured sued at 20 days — prematurely — and the second sued after the 2-year limit expired, so each suit violates one end of the statutory window.

Why the other options are wrong

• B) The second suit is also barred because it came after the 2-year cutoff.
• C) The first suit is also barred because it came before the 60-day wait ended.
• D) Each suit violates a distinct statutory boundary, so both fail under A.R.S. 20-1355.

Memory hook

Too early or too late — both lose.

Why B is correct

A.R.S. 20-1355 creates a window for A&H litigation: no action before 60 days after written proof of loss is filed, and no action after 2 years from the time proof was required to be given. The compliant strategy is to wait out the 60-day period and file well inside the 2-year outer limit.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) A suit filed 20 days after proof of loss is premature; notice of intent does not shorten the mandatory 60-day waiting period in A.R.S. 20-1355.
• C) The 90-day figure is the proof-of-loss window under A.R.S. 20-1351; it neither shortens the 60-day waiting period nor defines the suit deadline.
• D) Three years from the loss matches no part of A.R.S. 20-1355; the outer limit is 2 years from the time proof was required to be given.

Memory hook

Sue after 60, before 2 years — the Arizona suit window.