Lamb

Lamb v. American Security Insurance

Good Law
131 F. App'x 528
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 13, 2005No. 03-56013California388 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Richard Lamb appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Security Insurance Company, Inc. The district court held that *529 Lamb failed to comply with the provisions of his policy requiring: (1) immediate notice of loss; and (2) that suits against the insurer be brought within one year of the occurrence of the loss. We affirm.

The insured’s duties to notify the insurer of the loss and to initiate suit both commence at inception of loss. See Cal. Ins.Code § 2071 (2004). The first event of loss, the fire, occurred on February 26, 1999. A second claimed event of loss, the demolition of the property, occurred more than eighteen months later. The district court correctly concluded that the destruction of Lamb’s property, by either fire or demolition, is not the progressive loss contemplated in Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 674 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 387 , 798 P.2d 1230 (1990) and Kapsimallis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 104 Cal.App.4th 667 , 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 358 (2002). The loss to Lamb’s property was readily apparent and would have been discovered if Lamb had inspected the property at any time after February 26, 1999. It…

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.