Grober v. Markel American Ins.

Filed 9/13/06 Grober v. Markel American Ins. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elizabeth A. Grimes, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Steven Sandler and Steven Sandler for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sands Lerner, Neil S. Lerner, Joseph Cho and Benjamin A. Shapiro for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________________________

David Grober appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint against Markel American Insurance Company (Markel) after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. The superior court concluded that Grober failed to commence this action within the one-year limitations period set forth in the insurance policy. Grober contends Markel is equitably estopped from asserting the limitations period as a defense because Markel misled him by failing to correct his expressed misunderstanding of the provision. Grober also contends the limitations period was equitably tolled during the time the Department of Insurance reviewed the claim denial. We conclude that the facts alleged in the complaint fail to establish a basis for either equitable estoppel or equitable tolling sufficient to avoid the running of the limitations period. We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Factual Background

Markel issued an insurance policy providing coverage for physical loss or damage to a yacht owned by Grober. The policy included a provision stating, â€