California Supreme Court Watch

#23-204 Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, S281510. (A163848; 93 Cal.App.5th 436; San Francisco County Superior Court; CGC20587264.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: When a plaintiff files an action against the plaintiff’s insurer for injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law, which limitations period applies, the one-year limitations period authorized by Insurance Code section 2071 or the four-year statute of limitations in Business and Professions Code section 17208?

Petition for review granted; issues limited: 10/18/2023

Case fully briefed: 3/12/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 5/22/2024

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 7/18/2024

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (2024) 16 Cal.5th 520.)

“Section 2071 of the Insurance Code prescribes a standard form fire insurance policy, the provisions of which provide a baseline for fire insurance coverage in this state.1 Language within the standard policy provides, ‘No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with, and unless commenced within 12 months next after inception of the loss.’ (§ 2071.) The issue before us is whether this one-year deadline for filing suit, as found within an insurance policy that is subject to section 2071, determines the timeliness of an insured’s cause of action under the unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) that challenges the insurer’s general practices in handling claims and through which the insured seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of all policyholders, or whether the UCL’s four-year statute of limitations (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17208) governs instead.

In this case, a divided Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) upon agreeing with the lower court that plaintiff Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl’s failure to file her lawsuit within one year of her loss defeated her cause of action under the UCL. The dissenting justice would have allowed plaintiff’s suit to proceed, concluding that the UCL’s four-year limitations period controlled.

We conclude that the dissent was correct. Plaintiff’s lawsuit is not a ‘suit or action on [her] policy for the recovery of any claim.’ (§ 2071.) Plaintiff is not attempting to directly or indirectly recover damages associated with the denial of her insurance claim. Instead, plaintiff seeks only declaratory relief regarding State Farm’s claims-handling practices generally and a forward-looking injunction under the UCL. In pursuing such relief, plaintiff brings an essentially ‘preventive’ (Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 279, 326 (Nationwide Biweekly)) action to which neither the standard policy’s language, nor the policy reasons underlying the Legislature’s authorization of a one-year limitations period for filing certain kinds of claims-related lawsuits, applies. We therefore reverse the judgment below and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.”

Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.

In the news:  Cooley, Insurance Policy Time Limit Does Not Bar Injunctive Relief, Metropolitan News-Enterprise (July 19, 2024).