[co-author: Stephanie Kozol]*

On April 11, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court of the State of California arguing that policyholders should be able to assert claims under the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) independent of a one-year claim filing deadline under the California Insurance Code and their homeowners policy. The AG argues that the UCL’s four-year statute of limitations should apply, not the one-year window mandated.

The underlying claim originated from the plaintiff’s work on a staircase replacement outside her home in August 2019, which State Farm denied. The plaintiff filed two lawsuits alleging claims against State Farm in October 2020 — the first under the policy’s one-year claim-filing deadline, and the second under the UCL. Both were dismissed based on the one-year claim filing deadline. The California high court agreed to review the case last October, focusing on the statute of limitations issue.

Bonta argued that the one-year claim filing deadline under the California Insurance Code is a response to insurers’ concerns about fraudulent insurance claims. However, since a policyholder can’t use the UCL to secure alleged damages for an uncovered loss, there is “no reason to fear fraud by the policyholder,” Bonta stated. In the amicus brief, Bonta asserts that the UCL was enacted with the intention of establishing novel rights and remedies that were not previously accessible under common law. Bonta argues that this case aligns with the expressed purpose.

Why It Matters

If the California Supreme Court agrees with Bonta’s argument, this could give policyholders a longer window to assert claims under the state’s UCL. It also demonstrates that state AGs often are keeping an eye on plaintiff-brought consumer protection lawsuits and seeking to maintain broad statutory applicability to the extent allowed by our courts.

*Senior Government Relations Manager