Arocho

Arocho v. California Fair Plan Insurance

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 461·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1838·2005 Daily Journal DAR 13661·36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10024
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 28, 2005B177188California3,729 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Plaintiffs Jose and Maria Arocho appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant California Fair Plan Insurance Company (Fair Plan). The Arochos contend the superior court misinterpreted Code of Civil Procedure section 340.9, the Northridge earthquake revival statute, which only applied “to cases in which an insured contacted an insurer or an insurer’s representative prior to January 1, 2000, regarding potential Northridge earthquake damage.” The Arochos contacted their broker, James Stovall of Kosmos Insurance Agency, about earthquake damages shortly after the Northridge earthquake occurred. The court concluded Stovall was not a representative of the Fair Plan for the purposes of the revival statute. We reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

On January 17, 1994, two properties owned by the Arochos (the Properties) were insured by the Fair Plan, including earthquake coverage. The Arochos purchased the insurance through their broker James Stovall. The Arochos alleged the Northridge earthquake caused extensive damage to the Properties.

The Arochos first contacted Stovall within a few days after the earthquake. Stovall advised them that unless the Properties were in “rubbles,”…

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.