Opinion
2:20-cv-01731-KJM-DMC
05-24-2022
ORDER
Sharidan Stiles alleges General Insurance Company of America wrongly and in bad faith denied insurance claims related to damages her home sustained in the 2018 Carr Fire. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-14, ECF No. 27. General moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Stiles filed this lawsuit after the applicable one-year limitations period. See generally Mot., ECF No. 40; Mem., ECF No. 40-1. The motion is fully briefed and the court submitted it without a hearing. See generally Opp'n, ECF No. 38; Reply, ECF No. 43; Min. Order, ECF No. 44.
“To dismiss a complaint on statute of limitations grounds, it must appear ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.'” Rand v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins., 857 Fed.Appx. 343, 347 (9th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (quoting Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under California law, the one-year limit for Stiles's claims began to run on “the date of ‘inception of the loss, '” but it was tolled from the time she gave notice of the damage to General “until coverage [was] denied.” Prudential-LMI Com. Ins. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 674, 693 (1990). Stiles alleges some of her claims were initially denied in a December 2018 letter, Second Am. Compl. ¶ 8, but she alleges General “continued negotiations for months following the letter, ” id. ¶ 11. She also alleges “additional items were disclosed” to General after December 2018. Id. ¶ 12. She does not detail how long negotiations continued after December 2018, so it is unclear when her claim was actually denied, and thus when the tolling period ended. For that reason, the court cannot conclude “beyond doubt” that Stiles filed this lawsuit after the statute of limitations expired.
The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 40) is denied. A status (pretrial scheduling) conference is set for June 16, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. before the undersigned, with a joint report due fourteen days prior.
IT IS SO ORDERED.