Ninth Circuit Finds Covid Generated Rule Tolling Statutes of Limitations Does not Apply to Private Limitations of Action
Post 4926
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gFPzqxd6, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gNyhiZZ7 and at https://lnkd.in/gSnUNHkG and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
William Scollard sued State Farm after it denied his insurance claim alleging that two antique items, worth $126,000, were stolen from his vehicle. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm, finding that Scollard’s suit was time-barred under the homeowners policy’s one-year limitation period. Scollard appealed.
Private Limitation of Action not a Statute of Limitation
In William Scollard v. State Farm General Insurance Company, No. 23-55747, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (November 1, 2024) Scollard argued that Emergency Rule 9, enacted by the California Judicial Council in response to COVID-19, tolls the policy’s limitations provision. The Ninth Circuit noted that Rule 9 only tolls “statutes of limitations and repose[.]” Scollard argued unsucessfully that, because the limitation provision in the policy is mandated by California Insurance Code section 2071, it should be considered a statute of limitation and thus be tolled under Rule 9.
California law also at times distinguishes statutes of limitation, enacted by the legislature, from contractual limitation periods, which are bargained-for terms between the parties. Limitations periods in insurance policies are not “statutes” of limitation; they are contractual limitations on the insurer’s liability.
In certain circumstances and for some purposes, policy terms mandated by Insurance Code section 2071 are properly treated as a statute of limitation. Insurance Code section 2071’s mandated provisions provide the same result and are treated identically to statutes of limitation.
Conclusion
Because Rule 9 arises from the much broader context of COVID-19 and applies widely to all statutes of limitation, excluding contractual limitation periods contained in homeowners policies from the Rule’s scope does not defeat the entire purpose of the Rule.
Neither does the language of Rule 9 support reading it as applying to contractual limitation periods such as this one. The drafters of Rule 9 did not include “or contract” in Rule 9.
Absent any specific indication otherwise, there is no basis in California law to infer that the Judicial Council intended Rule 9 to toll contractual limitation periods.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that Rule 9 does not apply to Scollard’s claims because Rule 9 tolls only statutes of limitation, not limitation provisions contained in contracts like Scollard’s Policy.
ZALMA OPINION
For a reason unknown to me people and their lawyers tend to forget that an insurance policy is a contract. Every standard fire policy and every homeowners policy contain a private limitations of action provision – usually one or two years after the loss causing event, unless waived or extended. In this case Scollard filed his suit against State Farm after expiration of the private limitation of action. Although California’s Judicial Council enacted Rule 9 to extend statutes of limitations because of the lockdowns resulting from the Pandemic it did not even mention private limitations of action provision and Scollard’s suit was time barred.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Formulaic Recitation Of The Elements Of Civil Conspiracy Are Insufficient
Post number 5320
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPACkgWq and at https://lnkd.in/gsaxij7D, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Hassan Fayad v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., No. 2:25-cv-10930, United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division (March 24, 2026) Plaintiff Hassan Fayad, the owner of several businesses providing transportation, diagnostics, testing, and therapy services, regularly billed insurance companies for these services, was arrested and tried for fraud, convicted, had the conviction overruled and sued the insurers and prosecutors he found responsible.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By January 2020, Liberty Mutual, Progressive, Allstate, and Esurance suspected fraudulent activity and filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Attorney General (MDAG). The insurers alleged that Fayad and others billed Michigan auto insurance policies for profit without actually providing medically ...
Federal Courts Have Limited Jurisdiction
When all Parties Refuse Removal There is No Jurisdiction
Post number 5319
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gp6Z-JYY, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gAum322y and at https://lnkd.in/gRPzCjmt and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Beth Mayhew and Matthew Mayhew v. Vladimir Sadovyh, et al., No. 2:26-CV-04029-WJE, United States District Court, W.D. Missouri (April 6, 2026) Mayhew was involved in a trailer-truck accident with Vladimir Sadovyh, who was employed by Nova First, LLC and Globex Transport, Inc. Both companies owned the tractor-trailer involved.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Chubb and Mohave Transportation Insurance Company jointly issued an insurance policy covering Nova First, Globex, and Sadovyh, with EMA Risk Services acting as a third-party administrator.
Beth Mayhew sued Nova First, Globex, and Sadovyh for negligence in Missouri state court, and following a jury trial, a nuclear judgment was awarded to the Mayhews totaling ...
Ordinary Negligence is What Medical Professi0nal Liability Insures
Post number 5319
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gxKjDztW and at https://lnkd.in/gnxkxS42, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Sexual Conduct Exclusion Doesn’t Apply When Doctor Negligently Uses His Own Sperm
In Integris Insurance Company v. Narendra B. Tohan, No. AC 47222, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (April 7, 2026) Integris Insurance Company, a medical professional liability insurer, initiated a declaratory action to determine its duty to defend and indemnify Narendra B. Tohan, a physician licensed in Connecticut, in a separate negligence action alleging medical misconduct.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2019, Kayla Suprynowicz and Reilly Flaherty (civil action plaintiffs), who were strangers for most of their lives, discovered through a genetic testing company that they are half siblings.
INSURANCE POLICY
The policy defines “Professional Services” in relevant part as “any professional medical services within the ...
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 7 – April 1, 2026
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Post number 5314
Posted on April 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
No One is Above the Law – Not Even a Police Officer
Police Officer Convicted for Fraud in Reporting an Accident Affirmed
Police Officer Should never Lie about Results of Chase
In State Of Ohio v. Anthony Holmes, No. 115123, 2026-Ohio-736, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (March 5, 2026) a police officer appealed criminal conviction as a result of lies about a high speed chase.
Read the following article and the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ZIFL-04-01-2026-1.pdf...
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 7 – April 1, 2026
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Post number 5314
Posted on April 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
No One is Above the Law – Not Even a Police Officer
Police Officer Convicted for Fraud in Reporting an Accident Affirmed
Police Officer Should never Lie about Results of Chase
In State Of Ohio v. Anthony Holmes, No. 115123, 2026-Ohio-736, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (March 5, 2026) a police officer appealed criminal conviction as a result of lies about a high speed chase.
Read the following article and the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ZIFL-04-01-2026-1.pdf...
Posted on March 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Insurance Fraud, a Way to Reduce Violent Crime
Post number 5313
A Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story helps to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
She Taught Her Customers The Swoop And Squat:
Recently the California Insurance Department’s Fraud Division arrested a young woman in Los Angeles County for operating an insurance fraud school. She advertised her classes in the “Penny Saver” an advertising sheet distributed free to the public and a print version of Facebook, X Craig’s list. She had operated for several years teaching methods of committing automobile insurance fraud. Only after a police officer enrolled in one of her classes was she arrested.
Her defense ...
