Vu

Vu v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

Good Law
113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 70·2001 Cal. LEXIS 7136·2001 Daily Journal DAR 11827·26 Cal. 4th 1142·33 P.3d 487
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 5, 2001S078271California3,522 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kennard, J.

In a case involving an insurance claim for damages caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this court: “Where an insured presents a timely claim to his insurer for property damage under a policy, and the insurer’s agent inspects the property but does not discover the full extent of covered damage, does California Insurance Code § 2071 bar a claim brought by the insured more than one year after the damage was sustained but within one year of his discovery of the additional damage? Or, to put the matter differently, does Neff v. New York Life Ins. Co., 30 Cal.2d 165, 180 P.2d 900 (1947), remain good law?” (Vu v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1999) 172 F.3d 725, 727 .)

In answering this question, we explain below that Neffs holding that an unconditional denial of coverage commences the running of the one-year statute of limitation of Insurance Code section 2071 remains good law. On the facts of this case, however, Prudential may be estopped to raise the statute of limitations defense if the insured can show that he refrained from bringing a timely action because he…

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.