Opinion ID: 1373479
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Theories for tolling the statute

Text: Petitioner has argued several theories for avoiding the effect of the one-year statute in this case. (9a) The first is Filing suit against fictitious defendants tolled the statute of limitations.... The record shows that an amended complaint, filed November 19, 1969, in the case of Freeman v. Morita, named Does I through V as defendants whose true names were unknown to plaintiffs. There is no showing that any of the Does was ever served or ever appeared or that the complaint was amended to identify any of them as a real person. The case was tried and a judgment entered against petitioner in August 1972. (10) The law is liberal in permitting a plaintiff to substitute an identified person for a fictitious name while a case is pending, in which event the person so identified is deemed to have been a party from the beginning. (See Garrett v. Crown Coach Corp. (1968) 259 Cal. App.2d 647 [66 Cal. Rptr. 590].) (9b) But there is no authority for the effect which petitioner asks us to conjure from the fact that fictitious names had been listed in a complaint. If petitioner had amended his complaint to refer to the owner or operator of the convertible [4] in any way, or if, before the Morita trial, petitioner had informed State Farm that he intended to assert an uninsured motorist's claim by reason of the negligence of the owner or operator of the convertible, we might have an entirely different issue here. What we do have is a hindsight effort to claim that the Morita complaint was something which it was not. (11) Petitioner's second contention is that State Farm is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations where it has breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to insured. The short answer is that there is no showing of any breach. There is no evidence in the record that State Farm at any time had any material information which it withheld from petitioner. There is no showing that petitioner ever sought any information from State Farm after petitioner learned that State Farm insured Morita, or that State Farm ever influenced petitioner by words, acts or omissions. [5] There is no evidence that the insurer was aware that Morita would say a convertible had struck him until Morita so testified in the presence of petitioner's attorney. The trial court was entitled to interpret the discussion between petitioner and the insurer in early 1969, regarding uninsured motorist coverage, as having related entirely to the possibility that Morita was uninsured. Once it had been determined that Morita had coverage, petitioner gave no hint that he was thinking of asserting a claim under his uninsured motorists coverage, so far as the record shows. It is, of course, true that State Farm found itself in a position of potentially conflicting duties when a contested claim arose between two of its insured, but there is nothing in the record which would require the trial court to find that State Farm obtained any advantage thereby. Petitioner asserts The jury found for Morita on the ground that a `phantom' automobile pushed defendant's car into petitioner. There is no basis for that statement. All that has been shown is that the jury returned a verdict in favor of Morita and against petitioner. Petitioner's argument on breach of a duty of good faith is grounded wholly upon assumptions which are unsupported by the record made in the trial court. (12) Petitioner's final contention is that the court should apply here the principle that, when an injured party has several legal remedies, the statute of limitations does not run on one while he is pursuing the other. (See Myers v. County of Orange (1970) 6 Cal. App.3d 626, 634 [86 Cal. Rptr. 198], and cases cited.) None of the authorities cited have applied that rule to extend the time limit for demanding uninsured motorists arbitration. If, for the sake of preliminary analysis, we disregard the fact that State Farm was also Morita's insurer, it is clear that petitioner's theory cannot be reconciled with Insurance Code section 11580.2. Subdivision (i) of the statute provides that if the insured commences an action against the wrongdoer within a year, the time limit for demanding arbitration is extended. Subdivision (c) provides there shall be no coverage if the insured shall without the written consent of the insurer, make any settlement with or prosecute to judgment any action against any person who may be legally liable therefor. To a limited extent section 11580.2 is consistent with the several legal remedies principle of the Myers case. The pendency of the civil action extends the time for making a claim under the uninsured motorists coverage. But the statute also notifies the insured that if, without the consent of the insurer, he prosecutes his action to judgment, there shall be no coverage. There is no provision at all in section 11580.2 for extending time while the insured pursues the alleged liability of someone other than an uninsured motorist. Section 11580.2 cannot reasonably be construed to mean that if the insured sues A for his bodily injuries and loses, his right to assert a claim based upon the alleged negligence of B is extended during the litigation against A. A and B being joint tortfeasors, jointly and severally liable, may be sued in the same action. And there is no reason in law or good practice to encourage the injured party to litigate against them seriatim. In Myers v. County of Orange, supra , the plaintiff had alternative remedies, and the election to proceed first on one of them was an orderly and practical choice. But the uninsured motorists statute not only requires something to be done within the year, it also provides a convenient means by which the injured party may assert and preserve all of his remedies by proceeding within the year. [6] A recent application of the several legal remedies principle is found in Elkins v. Derby, 12 Cal.3d 410 [115 Cal. Rptr. 641, 525 P.2d 81], where an injured person first sought workmen's compensation upon the theory that the defendant was his employer and then, after the compensation board had determined there had been no employment, brought a civil action against the defendant. In holding that the statute of limitations for the civil action was tolled while the plaintiff was seeking workmen's compensation, the court pointed out that the two kinds of proceedings required the plaintiff to take inconsistent positions, and that requiring him to pursue the two concurrently in different tribunals would result in an awkward duplication of procedures. Nothing of that kind can be said for one who believes two persons may have been responsible, jointly or alternatively, for his injury in an automobile collision. It is tempting to assume that, since State Farm also covered Morita, the action of Freeman v. Morita and the proposed arbitration were just two aspects of the same claim. But that simplistic approach will not stand analysis. They were two distinct claims, one based upon the alleged wrong of Morita and the other based upon the alleged wrong of the driver of the convertible. There was no inconsistency in charging both with having caused petitioner's injury. The fact that Morita was also insured by State Farm created no impediment to petitioner's proceeding against Morita and the other alleged tortfeasors jointly, severally, concurrently or serially, as he saw fit, subject to the applicable statutory time limitations. Where uninsured motorists coverage is involved, subdivision (k) of section 11580.2 gives further protection against the bar of the statute of limitations. Under that subdivision, the insured need only make a timely claim against his insurer, who then has the burden of notifying the insured in writing 30 days before the expiration of the time limit. [7] Thus, if the insured merely presents a timely claim to his insurer, the period of limitations is extended indefinitely until the insurer, by giving notice, forces the claim into litigation. It is thus apparent that the thrust of the statute is not to force awkward duplication of procedures, but to require the insured merely to give the insurer prompt notice of what he is claiming. The position of State Farm would have been quite different in at least two respects had petitioner, before the trial of the Morita case, advised State Farm of his intention to seek damages based upon the alleged liability of the owner and operator of the convertible. First: State Farm would have had a special reason to seek out the owner and operator of the convertible to determine whether they had insurance coverage. If investigation showed they had coverage, State Farm would have been relieved of uninsured motorists coverage; and had petitioner then seen fit to include those parties (who had insurance) as fictitiously named defendants in the Morita suit, State Farm would have had the benefit of a potential joint tortfeasor to share a possible adverse judgment or settlement. Second: If timely investigation had shown that the convertible was uninsured, State Farm, knowing of its possible liability under uninsured motorists coverage, might have been amenable to a settlement with petitioner which would have saved both parties the expense of a trial. We do not point out these things to show that State Farm was prejudiced, or to presume prejudice. These matters are mentioned to demonstrate that the situation presented was not a simple case where petitioner was necessarily entitled to recover from State Farm in one proceeding or the other, and where it mattered not that the second one was beyond the statutory time limit. The trial court correctly held that the petition was untimely. The order denying the petition to compel arbitration and the order denying reconsideration are affirmed.