Appellant insured sought review of a decision of the Superior Court, Los Angeles County (California) that granted summary judgment in favor of respondent insurer on the ground that appellant's claim under his all-risk homeowner's policy was barred by the policy's contractual one-year limitation on the filing of an action and the sixty-day notice of loss requirement.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains last paycheck California

Overview

Appellant insured filed a claim under his all-risk homeowners insurance policy for losses incurred as a result of earth settlement or movement under his home. Respondent insurer refused to indemnify appellant on the ground that appellant had not given timely notice of the loss and had not commenced his claim within 12 months after the inception of the loss. Appellant brought suit and the trial court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the suit was barred by the contractual one-year limitation on the filing of an action. Appellant sought review, asserting that the inception of his loss was the date he knew or should have known that a loss had occurred which was covered by his policy. The court disagreed and held that it was irrelevant to the contractual one-year commencement of suit provision in the policy that appellant was ignorant of his legal remedy or the legal theories underlying his claim. The court therefore affirmed the summary judgment in favor of respondent.

Outcome

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent insurer because it held that appellant insured's claim was barred by the contractual one-year commencement of suit provision and that it was irrelevant that appellant was ignorant of his legal remedy or the legal theories underlying his claim.