Friday, July 24, 2026
Page 1
Insurer’s Invitation for ‘Additional Data’ Didn’t Undermine Unequivocal Denial of Claim—C.A.
Opinion Rejects View That Company Should be Estopped From Asserting Litigation Time Bar Based on Continuing Dialogue With Insured
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Two of the First District Court of Appeal has rejected a party’s assertion that his insurance company should be estopped from enforcing a one-year statute of limitations, that starts to run when an insurer makes an unequivocal denial of a claim, based on ongoing communications inviting the insured to submit “any additional information.”
Justice Tara M. Desautels authored the opinion, which was filed June 30 and certified for publication on Wednesday. She acknowledged that the parties continued to discuss the claim, which related to allegations that the plaintiff, Sudarshan Kumar, discovered mold caused by a leaky water heater in a property he owned in January 2021, after the insurer sent him a letter one month later “closing the claim” upon the payment of $5,010.93.
However, she opined:
“Kumar argues that [the insurer] intended to mislead him by ‘repeatedly telling’ him to [submit more information for review]….But any such invitation…was in response to a request or information from Kumar and thus does not support his estoppel claim. Further undermining Kumar’s estoppel argument, the invitations were accompanied by a clear statement that Kumar’s claim was being closed and a repeated disclosure of the limitations period….Thus, Kumar fails to provide any factual basis for his estoppel claim.”
Presiding Justice Therese M. Stewart and Justice James A. Richman joined in the opinion.
Summary Judgment
The question arose after then-Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch (now retired) granted summary judgment to Mid-Century Insurance Company in March of last year based on timeliness concerns, finding that the plaintiff’s June 2023 complaint, seeking damages for the costs of repair and loss of use of his property, fell outside the one-year statute of limitations.
Desautels noted that “the limitations period applicable to insurance policy disputes ‘is technically a contractual provision limiting the time in which a suit can be brought,’ however, ‘it is statutory in origin and considered to be akin to a statute of limitations.’ ” She pointed out that Kumar’s policy, consistent with Insurance Code §2017, provides for a one-year time-frame but cited case law establishing that the period is tolled until the claim is unequivocally denied.
Addressing whether the insurer’s February 2021 letter, paying out for water damage but denying additional payments for wear, tear, mold, and rust, constituted an unequivocal denial, she said:
“The letter…explained that Mid-Century had ‘completed the adjustment of [Kumar’s] loss and [was] closing [his] claim.’ The letter concluded: ‘Submission of supplemental claims and requests for recoverable depreciation…does not automatically reopen the claim.’ No reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the February 16 letter was anything but an unequivocal denial of coverage.”
Subjective Belief
Saying that “even liberally construing Kumar’s evidence, his understanding that the claim remained open is, at best, a subjective belief,” she remarked that the plaintiff “offers no authority indicating that subject belief is relevant to determining if a written letter is unequivocal.”
She recognized that “an insurer may be prohibited from asserting a statute of limitations defense ‘where it has caused the insured to delay filing suit until after the expiration of the time period’” but said that “the argument is not a cognizable basis for opposing Mid Century’s motion for summary judgment” where “Kumar never made any such allegations in his complaint.”
The jurist continued:
“Even if it were cognizable, Kumar’s estoppel argument lacks merit. To estop Mid-Century from asserting its limitations defense, Kumar must show: (1) Mid-Century knew of the limitations period; (2) Mid-Century intended to induce Kumar to refrain from filing a lawsuit; (3) Kumar was ignorant of the true facts; and (4) Kumar relied upon Mid-Century’s acts or omissions….
“….Kumar fails to provide any factual basis for his estoppel claim.”
Adequate Weight
She was similarly unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s assertion that the trial court failed to give adequate weight to a 2020 letter published by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara which directs insurers “to extend policyholder deadlines by at least 90 days beyond the end of the COVID-19 state of emergency,” which Gov. Gavin Newsom did proclaim to be over until February 2023.
The jurist wrote:
“As for the Insurance Commissioner’s COVID-19 notice, Kumar requested the trial court take judicial notice of an April 3, 2020 directive….We fail to see how the trial court’s recognition of the nonbinding nature of the directive constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
The case is Kumar v. Mid-Century Insurance Company, 2026 S.O.S. 2170.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company