BROADCASTS.com

b'

Suing for Unfair Competition and an Injunction to Avoid Private \\nLimitation of Action Provision Dismissed\\n\\nKatherine Rosenberg-Wohl had a homeowners insurance policy with State \\nFarm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), providing coverage on her \\nhome in San Francisco. The policy has a limitation provision that \\nrequires lawsuits to be "started within one year after the date of loss \\nor damage."\\n\\nIn Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, \\nA163848, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division \\n(July 11, 2023) she sought indemnity to remedy a defect in the home. \\nState Farm refused to pay because there was no insurable event and \\nbecause the suit was filed more than a year after the alleged loss.\\n\\nFACTS\\n\\nIn late 2018 or early 2019, plaintiff noticed that on two occasions an \\nelderly neighbor stumbled and fell as she descended plaintiff\'s outside \\nstaircase and learned that the pitch of the stairs had changed and that \\nto make the stairs safe the staircase needed to be replaced. In late \\nApril 2019, plaintiff authorized the work and contacted State Farm, and \\non August 9, she submitted a claim for the money she had spent.\\n\\nThe denial was based on the investigation findings and concluded there \\nwas no evidence of a covered cause for accidental direct physical damage\\n to the property.\\n\\nPlaintiff submitted a claim to State Farm for her construction expenses,\\n which by then were approximately $52,600, with another $16,800 in \\nanticipated expenses for additional work. By letter dated August \\n26-plaintiff alleged, without any investigation-State Farm denied the \\nclaim. The letter also specifically referenced "the suit limitation \\nperiod" as a "policy defense."\\n\\nThe second suit before the the Superior Court purports to allege a claim\\n for violation of California\'s unfair competition law. This case was \\nalso resolved against plaintiff, also based on the limitation provision,\\n when the trial court sustained a demurrer to the second amended \\ncomplaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed.\\n\\nOn October 22, 2020-some 18 months after she had replaced the staircase,\\n 14 months after State Farm had denied her claim the first time, and \\nnearly six months after the one-year limitation period of the policy had\\n expired-plaintiff filed two lawsuits in San Francisco County Superior \\nCourt.\\n\\nState Farm filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the SAC. On July 29, \\nJudge Massullo entered her order sustaining the demurrer without leave \\nto amend, a comprehensive order indeed, eight pages of thoughtful \\nanalysis.\\n\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\nThe one-year limitation provision in the State Farm policy is there \\nbecause it was required by statute. [Califonria Insurance Code section \\n2071] The one-year limitation provisions have long been held valid as \\nmandated by statute.\\n\\nThe One-Year Policy Limitation Provision Applies\\n\\nAn insured cannot plead around the one-year limitations provision by \\nlabeling her cause of action something different than breach of contract\\n which, of course, includes claims for bad faith. Conduct by the insurer\\n after the limitation period has run cannot, as a matter of law, amount \\nto a waiver or estoppel.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nThe Court of Appeal spent many pages resolving this fairly simple \\ndispute. The plaintiff sued to collect benefits she believed were owed \\nunder a policy of insurance only to find that the suit was filed to \\nlate. To avoid that problem she amended the suit to allege unfair \\nbusiness practices and sought an injunction, all of which were seen to \\nbe an alternative way to obtain policy benefits and failed again. For \\nmore than 120 years the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal \\nhave upheld the private limitation of action provision required by \\nstatute and no amount of creative pleading can avoid its effect.