Harris

dissenting.

The other courts that have considered this issue of state law have reached a conclusion at odds with that reached by my colleagues in the majority. These courts have determined almost unanimously that Section 10350.11, and provisions in policies providing similar language, supply an accrual rule for purposes of applying a statute of limitations, and that the insured is not required to provide proof of loss until the actual termination of his disability. See, e.g., Hofkin v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 365, 372-73 (3d Cir.1996) (holding that the insured was required to give proof of loss only after the termination of continuous period of disability); Clark v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 749 F.2d 504, 507 (8th Cir.1984) (“[T]he policy itself contemplates that proof of loss may be submitted after disability terminates.”); Panepinto v. New York Life Ins. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 717, 723 , 665 N.Y.S.2d 385 , 688 N.E.2d 241 (1997) (holding that the “proof of loss requirements, and, by extension, the three-year limitations period in the policies, commence upon the termination of the disability as an objective, medical fact”); Wall v. Penn. Life Ins. Co., 274…

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff William Harris appeals the dismissal of his action against the Prudential Insurance Company of America. The issue is when the applicable statutes of limitation governing Harris’ breach of contract and bad faith claims were triggered.

California courts have long held that an insured’s cause of action against an insurer accrues upon receipt of the insurer’s unconditional denial of liability to the insured. 2 See, e.g., Neff v. New York Life Ins. Co., 30 Cal.2d 165, 170 , 180 P.2d 900 (1947) (holding that “an unconditional denial of liability to the insured [gives] rise to an immediate cause of action”); Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143 , 271 Cal.Rptr. 246 (1990) (holding that insureds’ causes of action accrued when they “were aware of the factual predicate to their suit and were aware their claim had been unconditionally denied”) (citation omitted).

It is undisputed that on January 11, 1996, Prudential informed Harris that it had considered his long-term disability claim, determined that the company was not liable beyond December 14, 1993, and terminated the claim. This was “unequivocal language that no further payment on the claim…