Private Limitation of Action Provision Defeats Suit Against Insurer
Post 5072
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g_8AU-NK and at https://lnkd.in/gWzCpUZB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
In Vishnudut Ramyead et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Company, B329614, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division (April 29, 2025) resolved a purported class action suit because it was filed late.
After their personal property suffered water damage, plaintiffs and appellants Vishnudut and Teika Ramyead (collectively, plaintiffs) submitted a claim to their property insurer, defendant and respondent State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm). State Farm paid plaintiffs a total of $750.75. Dissatisfied with State Farm’s handling of their claim, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against State Farm, bringing causes of action for alleged violations of the unfair competition law and declaratory relief.
The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs took out a homeowner’s insurance policy with State Farm, effective for one year from February 17, 2018.
The policy established that, in accordance with state law, “[n]o action shall be brought” against State Farm “unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions. The action must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage.”
Plaintiffs’ Claim
On May 8, 2018, a leaking water supply line damaged plaintiffs’ property, including a sofa and ottoman in an adjacent bedroom. On May 10, 2018, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a claim with State Farm. They reported that the value of the sofa and ottoman was $2,500 and $1,000, respectively; both pieces were about 20 years old.
Complaint
On February 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a class action against State Farm. Their operative first amended complaint (FAC) set forth two causes of action: (1) violations of the unfair competition law and (2) declaratory relief.
The FAC alleged that State Farm violated California law by adding sales tax to the retail price of personal property before finding and subtracting the property’s depreciated value. Plaintiffs contended that this practice effectively depreciates sales tax, “a non-depreciable item” under section 2051 and related regulations. As a result, State Farm wrongly withheld “money that is owed to [p]laintiffs and those other insureds similarly situated.” Among other things, the FAC sought “disgorgement of all sums unjustly obtained” by State Farm, and “restitution to plaintiffs” and other policyholders.
State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs’ Opposition
In December 2022, State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) plaintiffs’ claims were untimely because they were brought after the one-year limitations period, and (2) as a matter of law, section 2051 does not prohibit depreciation of sales tax. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment.
The trial court ruled that plaintiffs’ claims are indisputably untimely. Because plaintiffs’ claims for unfair competition and declaratory relief seek to recover amounts they contend State Farm should have included in their payment under the policy and California law their claims are on the policy for purposes of the one year limitation contained in their policy.
Moreover, the trial court found that section 2051 and related regulations do not bar an insurer from depreciating sales tax when calculating the actual cash value of personal property.
DISCUSSION
The expiration of the applicable statute of limitations or private limitation of action provision is a complete defense. If the movant presents evidence establishing the defense and plaintiff did not effectively dispute any of the relevant facts, summary judgment was properly granted.
Plaintiffs’ Lawsuit is Barred by the Applicable Statute of Limitations
The parties disagree about which statute of limitations applies to plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Plaintiffs contend that it falls under the four-year period of limitations governing the unfair competition law.
The One-Year Statute Of Limitations Applies To Plaintiffs’ Lawsuit
The Court of Appeals held that section 2071 is concerned with causes of action that in some manner seek a financial recovery attributable to a claimed loss that was covered under a policy.
In the First Amended Complaint (FAC), plaintiffs request not just declaratory and injunctive relief, but also the return of money that, per plaintiffs, State Farm unlawfully withheld from the amount owed on their claim.
Plaintiffs’ Lawsuit Is Time Barred
Three dates are used to ascertain whether a plaintiff filed suit within section 2071’s one-year limitations period.
1. The limitations period starts running on the date that the insured discovers a loss to covered property. In this case, plaintiffs discovered the damage to their furniture on May 8, 2018.
2. the clock stops running on the date that the insured reports the claim. Plaintiffs submitted a claim to State Farm on May 10, 2018.
3. the limitations period resumes running on the date that the insurer closes its investigation into the insured’s claim.
Plaintiffs’ lawsuit was untimely. The limitations period began running on May 8, 2018. Plaintiffs stopped the clock two days later, when they filed their claim on May 10, 2018. At this point, two days of their one-year limitations period had already elapsed. Thus, from the date State Farm closed its investigation, plaintiffs had one year, less two days, to file suit.
Assuming that State Farm closed the investigation on November 14, 2018, plaintiffs would have had until November 12, 2019, to sue. If State Farm did not close the investigation until February 19, 2019, then plaintiffs had until February 17, 2020. But they did not file this lawsuit until February 19, 2020-two days after the last date on which the statute of limitations could have expired.
Because State Farm successfully established that the applicable statute of limitations bars plaintiffs’ lawsuit, and plaintiffs did not effectively dispute any of the relevant facts, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in State Farm’s favor.
The judgment was affirmed. State Farm is entitled to costs on appeal.
ZALMA OPINION
Private Limitation of Action provisions have existed in insurance policies since the turn of the 20th Century with the New York Standard Fire Insurance policy. California case law tolled the running of the limitation while the insurer adjusted the claim and started it running again when they were done. The plaintiffs failed to even file timely with the delay and lost.
(c) 2025 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 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
Convicted Criminal Seeks to Compel Receiver to Protect his Assets
Post number 5291
See the video at and at and at https://www.zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
The Work of a Court Appointed Receiver is Constitutionally Protected
In Simon Semaan et al. v. Robert P. Mosier et al., G064385, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division (February 6, 2026) the Court of Appeals applied the California anti-SLAPP statute which protects defendants from meritless lawsuits arising from constitutionally protected activities, including those performed in official capacities. The court also considered the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which shields court-appointed receivers from liability for discretionary acts performed within their official duties.
Facts
In September 2021, the State of California filed felony charges against Simon Semaan, alleging violations of Insurance Code section 11760(a) for making...
When There are Two Different Other Insurance Clauses They Eliminate Each Other and Both Insurers Owe Indemnity Equally
Post number 5289
In Great West Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., and Conserv FS, Inc., and Timothy A. Brennan, as Administrator of the Estate of Pat- rick J. Brennan, deceased, Nos. 24-1258, 24-1259, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (February 11, 2026) the USCA was required to resolve a dispute that arose when a tractor-trailer operated by Robert D. Fisher (agent of Deerpass Farms Trucking, LLC-II) was involved in a side-impact collision with an SUV driven by Patrick J. Brennan, resulting in Brennan’s death.
Facts
Deerpass Trucking, an interstate motor carrier, leased the tractor from Deerpass Farms Services, LLC, and hauled cargo for Conserv FS, Inc. under a trailer interchange agreement. The tractor was insured by Great West Casualty Company with a $1 million policy limit, while the trailer was insured by Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company with a $2 million ...
Opiod Producer Seeks Indemnity from CGL Insurers
Post number 5288
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guNhStN2, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYqkk-n3 and at https://lnkd.in/g8U3ehuc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurers Exclude Damages Due to Insured’s Products
In Matthew Dundon, As The Trustee Of The Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 24-4221, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (February 10, 2026) Matthew Dundon, trustee of the Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust, sued multiple commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for coverage of opioid-related litigation involving Endo International PLC a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
KEY FACTS
Beginning as early as 2014, thousands of opioid suits were filed by governments, third parties, and individuals alleging harms tied to opioid manufacturing and marketing.
Bankruptcy & Settlements
Endo filed Chapter 11 in August 2022; before bankruptcy it ...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lost the ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah. Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and wonder how did all these wonderful things come into being. Jews believe the force we call G_d created the entire universe and everything in it. Jews feel G_d is all seeing and knowing and although we can’t see Him, He is everywhere and in everyone.We understand...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/passover-americans-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-5vgkc.
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lostthe ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah.
Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and ...
You Get What You Pay For – Less Coverage Means Lower Premium
Post number 5275
Posted on January 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
When Experts for Both Sides Agree That Two Causes Concur to Cause a Wall to Collapse Exclusion Applies
In Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Insurance Company, No. 1-24-1465, 2026 IL App (1st) 241465-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois (January 27, 2026) resolved the effect of an anti-concurrent cause exclusion to a loss with more than one cause.
Facts and Background
Lido Hospitality, Inc. operates the Lido Motel in Franklin Park, Illinois. In November 2020, a windstorm caused one of the motel’s brick veneer walls to collapse. At the time, Lido was insured under a policy issued by AIX Specialty Insurance Company which provided coverage for windstorm damage. However, the policy contained an exclusion for any loss or damage directly or indirectly resulting from ...
