Low, Ball & Lynch’s
WEEKLY LAW RESUME
May
26, 2005 Issue By: Ray Coates
Property Coverage - Limitations
Period - Equitable Estoppel
Charlotte Cordova v. 21st Century
Insurance Company
Court of Appeal, Second District
(May 5, 2026)
The California Legislature extended the limitations period for Northridge
earthquakes claimants from January 1, 2001, to December 31,
2001. This opinion addressed the issue of whether, at the end of that one
year additional period, the window was permanently closed for further claims or
whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel could be asserted.
Charlotte Cordova was insured by 21st Century Insurance Company for
earthquake coverage. Shortly after the 1994 earthquake, she submitted a
claim based on damage to block walls, cracks throughout her house, and damage
to her personal property. 21st Century determined the losses were less
than the applicable deductible, but sent her a small check for damage to other
structures. She requested the company to reevaluate her claim, and a
further sum was paid. Thereafter, she wrote to 21st Century indicating
that she understood she could have her home inspected by a structural engineer
at 21st Century's expense. 21st Century responded by advising her that if
the contractor making repairs on her property suggested an inspection by a
structural engineer, the company would employ such a person to conduct the
inspection.
In August 2002, an attorney representing Cordova wrote to the company.
He was notified by 21st Century that the time period for filing claims had
expired. The attorney wrote back requesting the claim be reopened.
There were no further communications.
Cordova sued 21st Century for losses sustained in the Northridge
earthquake. 21st Century moved for summary judgment based on the position
that the claim was barred. Cordova responded that she filed suit more
than one year after section 340.9 had expired, but relied on the doctrine of
equitable estoppel. The trial court granted 21st Century's motion for
summary judgment. Cordova appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed. It first concluded that C.C.P. section
340.9 did not preclude victims of the Northridge earthquake from obtaining equitable
relief from the statutory limitation period for filing a lawsuit. That
section revived earthquake claims for one year, 2001, where a previous claim
had been made prior to January 1, 2000. The Court found nothing in the
language of the statute to preclude the application of the doctrine of
equitable estoppel.
The trial court granted the motion, holding that the doctrine of equitable
estoppel did not apply to a case governed by C.C.P. section 340.9. As
such, it ruled as a matter of law that the claim was extinguished.
Cordova failed to submit any evidence supporting a claim of equitable
estoppel. The Court held that Cordova should have been allowed to submit
evidence opposing the motion. It was error for the trial court to grant
the motion. Cordova should have been provided an opportunity to respond
to the motion and given a chance to show there was a triable issue of material
fact regarding the issue of estoppel. The Court therefore concluded it
was error for the trial court to grant the motion. The judgment was
reversed.
COMMENT
This opinion holds that the extended one-year period for filing Northridge
earthquake claims can be extended even further under the doctrine of equitable
estoppel. Those handling these claims should therefore be made aware of
this decision.
____
To order a printed version of this analysis,
or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission.
Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000,
[email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM.
The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published
fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL &
LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in