Cossman

Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Good Law
108 Cal. App. 4th 370·133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 376
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2003A097110California3,860 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marchiano, J.

Plaintiffs Max and Bette Cossman brought an action alleging that Bette Cossman was exposed to asbestos that resulted in a diagnosis of mesothelioma in 1994. Max Cossman appeals from the superior court’s granting of a nonsuit in favor of several Indiana defendants based on the Indiana statute of limitations.

The issue we consider is whether a nonresident plaintiff may bring a tort action in California that accrued in another state and was caused by acts in the other state notwithstanding the fact that the action is barred by the statute of limitations of the foreign state. We conclude that Code of Civil Procedure section 361 bars the action and affirm.

Background

Max and Bette Cossman were bom in Indiana. They met in Indiana in 1941 and married in 1943 in South Bend, Indiana. At that time, Mr. Cossman was in the United States Navy, stationed in California. Mrs. Cossman went to live with her husband in Seal Beach, California, from approximately August of 1943 until the end of that year. At that time, Mr. Cossman was assigned to the South Pacific and Mrs. Cossman returned to Indiana to live with her parents.

In July or August of 1945, Mr. Cossman returned and was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.