Plichcik v. Safeco Insurance

Background

Susan Carol Plichcik, who represented herself throughout the litigation, alleged that hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal belongings stored at her sister’s home were destroyed when the home burned in the October 2017 Tubbs Fire. She sued Safeco Insurance, Safeco Insurance Company of America, Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, and General Insurance Company of America. Her claims included breach of contract, misrepresentation, emotional distress, claims under the Unruh Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and unfair competition. She alleged that the insurers failed to pay benefits under her homeowners policy.

General issued Plichcik a homeowners policy covering the period from August 7, 2017, through August 7, 2018. The policy covered her personal property while it was anywhere in the world and expressly covered losses caused by fire. It also required any lawsuit to be started within one year after the loss or damage, after compliance with the policy’s provisions.

Plichcik reported the fire loss on October 24, 2017. In August 2019, Safeco sent a letter to her attorney stating that her claims were denied because she had not provided receipts and other records documenting the personal-property losses. Plichcik filed the lawsuit in state court on February 1, 2021. After she filed an amended complaint, the defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

Summary-judgment analysis

Summary judgment is a decision entered when the undisputed evidence shows that one side is entitled to judgment under the law. The court found that Plichcik knew of the denial of her claims in August 2019 and filed suit 530 days after receiving the denial letter. Even when giving her credit for all tolling days proposed by the defendants, the filing was well beyond the policy’s 365-day limit.

The court held that the one-year contractual deadline was enforceable under California law. It rejected Plichcik’s tolling arguments. The materials she submitted concerning a request for assistance to the California Department of Insurance did not show an adjudication or establish that the contractual deadline was tolled. California Judicial Council Emergency Rule 9 concerned statutory limitations periods, while the insurers relied on a contractual limitation provision. The court also found that an Insurance Department notice asking insurers not to enforce policy or statutory deadlines was a request rather than a mandatory legal obligation.

The court likewise found no support for equitable tolling. It identified no evidence that Safeco or General gave up their contractual rights, induced Plichcik not to sue, or that Plichcik reasonably and in good faith pursued another remedy. The court also noted that the policy required Plichcik to cooperate with the investigation and provide documentation, and that the insurers said they denied the claims because she did not do so.

Ruling

Judge James Donato granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. He ruled that all of Plichcik’s statutory and common-law claims were based on the alleged failure to pay benefits under the homeowners policy. Regardless of how the claims were labeled, they were therefore subject to and barred by the policy’s one-year contractual limitation period. The court stated that the case could not go forward, and judgment was to be entered separately in favor of the defendants.