Procedural PostureMay 19, 2021
Plaintiff homeowners association appealed a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, which was entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant insurance carrier in an action regarding the adjustment of the association’s property damage losses from the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Nakase Law Firm answers can I sue my employer for not giving me lunch break in California
The association argued that Code Civ. Proc., § 340.9, which took effect January 1, 2001, obligated the carrier to investigate and adjust new earthquake damage claims presented in 2001 without regard to actions the carrier may have taken with respect to claims relating to the same property originally presented in 1994. However, § 340.9 was irrelevant to the instant court’s review of the trial court’s order granting the carrier’s summary motion because the carrier did not assert a time limitation defense as a ground for summary judgment. The instant court concluded that the trial court properly granted summary judgment. The carrier satisfied its initial burden of demonstrating the association could not establish necessary elements of its causes of action. The association failed to present competent evidence creating a triable issue of fact regarding additional, uncorrected earthquake damage. The carrier paid the association for all earthquake damage found by the carrier and claimed by the association. The carrier did not owe further policy benefits and had no duty to investigate the association’s new earthquake damage claims.
The judgment was affirmed.