Zamir v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Filed 8/22/06 Zamir v. State Farm Fire and Casualty CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT
| GIDON ZAMIR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. ___________________________________ ABE GURMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. __________________________________DANIEL ZIV Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. | B173449 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC304067) B173450 (Los Angeles County (Super. Ct. No. BC303773) B173451 (Los Angeles County (Super. Ct. No. BC303772) |
APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County. Wendell Mortimer, Jr., Judge. Reversed with directions.
Beverly Hills Law Associates and Stephen M. Losh for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
LHB Pacific Law Partners, Clarke B. Holland, Lisa L. Kirk; Robie & Matthai, James Robie; Crandall, Wade & Lowe and Michael J. McGuire for Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
In three consolidated appeals, plaintiff property owners seek reversal of judgments of dismissal, granted after demurrers to complaints by defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm)[1] were sustained without leave to amend, on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiffs contend they sufficiently alleged equitable estoppel to assert the statute, or that it was an abuse of discretion to deny leave amend to seek to do so. State Farm rejoins that equitable estoppel was statutorily unavailable, and that in any event plaintiffs' complaints failed to allege facts amounting to estoppel, and demonstrated an inability to do so. We conclude that plaintiffs stated causes of action that were statutorily timely because of estoppel, and we reverse the judgment with directions to reinstate plaintiffs' breach of contract and bad faith claims.
FACTS
The complaints below were filed, respectively, by Gidon Zamir, Abe and Arnon Gurman, and Daniel Ziv, each in October 2003. Plaintiffs alleged that they owned real property in Los Angeles County, which State Farm insured against earthquake damage. The alleged breaches of policy duties occurred following and in relation to the Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994, from which the several properties suffered damage. The plaintiffs made claims to State Farm. The complaints alleged State Farm's response to those claims, and the aftermath up to these lawsuits, as follows.
1. Zamir.
Zamir submitted two claims. After visiting his property, adjuster Barry White, on about March 1, 1994, denied one claim on grounds the loss was not covered. The second claim, however, was evaluated, at State Farm's direction by an engineering company, which was asked to inspect the property with specific concern for the exterior and chimney. State Farm also sent another contractor to inspect for asbestos damage, and it submitted a remediation proposal of $2,490. The engineering firm submitted State Farm a report with four pages of recommendations, based on visual inspections of accessible interior and exterior areas, but no subsurface or destructive testing. The report was in terms â€
