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