Geiger

Plaintiff appeals from the judgments of dismissal entered in two actions which she brought against respondent Aetna Insurance Company. In each action plaintiff sought to recover under a contract of insurance issued by respondent. These actions were dismissed for want of prosecution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.) The judgments of dismissal were entered 4 years, 11 months and 21 days, and 4 years and 10 months, respectively, after the actions were commenced.

Appellant filed her actions on April 26, 1960, (Civil 29904), and May 17,1960 (Civil 29905). Although the duty to prosecute an action with diligence always abides with the plaintiff, appellant’s affidavits filed in opposition to respondent’s motions to dismiss fail to make even a flimsy showing of diligence. Indeed, the record presents a classic case of neglect and dilatory conduct. As recently restated in Bella Vista Dev. Co. v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.2d 603, 614 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 106 ], and Preiss v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 171 Cal.App.2d 559, 563 [ 340 P.2d 661 ]: ‘‘ ‘The established doctrine in this state is that it is the plaintiff upon whom rests the duty to use diligence at every stage of the proceeding to expedite his…