Goldie
Goldie v. Hartford Insurance
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Ron and Betty Goldie (“the Goldies”) appeal the district court’s order granting *562 summary judgment to Hartford Insurance Company (“Hartford”) and denying their motion for summary adjudication. The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, so we proceed to the law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
1. Equitable Tolling
Because there are facts in dispute, we review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision whether a statute of limitations has been equitably tolled. Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir.2000). Here, the district court abused its discretion because it based its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of fact. Richard S. v. Dep’t of Dev. Servs., 317 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir.2003). In a February 6, 2003 letter, Hartford expressly acknowledged it reopened the Goldies’ claim, triggering a tolling of the limitations period and making the bad faith claim timely. See Ashou v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 138 Cal.App.4th 748 , 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 819, 825-28 (2006). As a result, we reverse the district court’s denial of equitable tolling.
2. The Merits