Harris v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
Docket: No. 02-55874, 02-55886; D.C. No. CV-01-02754-TJH
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 15, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
William Harris appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against Prudential Insurance Company regarding breach of contract and bad faith claims. The central issue is the trigger date for the statutes of limitation on these claims, which California law states begins upon the insured’s receipt of an unconditional denial of liability from the insurer. On January 11, 1996, Prudential informed Harris that his long-term disability claim was denied beyond December 14, 1993. This communication constituted an unequivocal denial, thus starting the statute of limitations for Harris’ claims. Under California law, the statute of limitations for breach of contract is four years, and for bad faith claims, it is two years. Harris filed his lawsuit on February 9, 2001, which is beyond both limitation periods and therefore time-barred. Harris contends that California Insurance Code §§ 10350.11 and 10350.7, along with Prudential’s policy terms, affect the limitation periods; however, these provisions do not alter the accrual date for limitations. The court highlights that § 10350.11 does not constitute a statute of limitations or provide an accrual date but establishes a framework for contract claims and proof of loss. Harris references nonbinding out-of-circuit cases to support his argument, but these precedents contradict established California law and do not apply. The court confirms adherence to California Code of Civil Procedure limitations, affirming the dismissal of Harris' action as untimely, and noting that Prudential's cross-appeal on summary judgment is moot. The court reiterates that California law applies in this matter, affirming that Prudential’s policies comply with statutory requirements for proof of loss.