Lee v. Glenn Falls Ins. Co.
Filed 5/22/06 Lee v. Glenn Falls Ins. Co. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
JEFFREY JEE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GLEN FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | C050326 (Super. Ct. No. 03AS06600) |
Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Diane Jee filed a first amended complaint against defendants Glen Falls Insurance Company and Encompass Insurance[1] alleging breach of a written homeowner's insurance contract, promissory fraud, insurance bad faith and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling the statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs appeal from the ensuing judgment. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs were insured under a homeowner's policy with Glen Falls Insurance Co. On December 1, 2001, plaintiffs' house was damaged when a tree limb fell on their roof during a storm. On December 18, 2001, plaintiffs reported the damage to defendants.
Defendants' claims representative began investigating the claim and in an interview with plaintiff Jeffrey Jee, learned that the roof had sustained significant damage on at least two occasions prior to the December 1, 2001 storm damage, and had not been reported to defendant. As to the prior damage, the plaintiffs did not commission professional roof repair but instead relied on make-shift repairs. On March 29, 2002, defendants sent a letter to plaintiffs stating, in part: â€
