Facts

Bahram Jarrahi owned a mobile home located in Calabasas, California. Jarrahi purchased mobile home insurance coverage from Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan. The policy was effective from August 4, 2016, to August 4, 2017, and it contained an exclusion provision that excluded from coverage, among other things, loss caused by wear and tear and rain leakage.

On February 17, 2017, two trees fell on Jarrahi's property during a storm, and rainwater entered the mobile home. The following day, Jarrahi reported the damage to Foremost, and claims adjuster Joshua Erickson was sent to inspect the property. On March 2, 2017, Erickson sent Jarrahi a check for $974.30 to cover repairs for damages caused by the fallen trees: An outside engineer hired by Foremost concluded the water that had damaged the property was from rain leakage.

On March 2, 2018, Jarrahi contacted Scott Orange at Foremost to say he had new information about his claim. Orange assigned Gustavo Delgado to the claim, and Delgado performed an inspection of the mobile home on March 12, 2018. Once again, the claim for water damage was denied because of the exclusionary provisions. In the letter denying the claim, Foremost informed Jarrahi that the policy contained a one-year limitation on suits and the claim was now closed.

On June 6, 2018, Jarrahi sent Delgado a report from an engineer regarding damage to the mobile home, so Delgado reopened the file and arranged another inspection. This inspection uncovered additional covered damage from the fallen trees, so Delgado readjusted the claim and issued another check to Jarrahi. In a separate letter, Foremost once again explained to Jarrahi no coverage was available for interior water damage.

After another claim addendum by Jarrahi was denied, on June 21, 2019, Foremost was served with a demand letter from an attorney, which requested the policy limit and stated Jarrahi intended to file suit. On March 9, 2020, Jarrahi filed suit against Foremost.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: The plaintiff contended that the defendant had breached its duty to provide coverage under the policy; that the one-year limitation period contained in the policy was equitably tolled by Foremost reopening the claim; that the defendant had waived the limitation period; that the defendant had failed to fully investigate his claim; and that the defendant should be equitably estopped from asserting the limitation period as a defense because of its own bad acts. The plaintiff also contended he was entitled to punitive damages because the of the defendant's fraudulent conduct.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defendant denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiff's material allegations. Moreover, the defendant contended the plaintiff's claims were barred by the policy's one-year limitation period.

Result

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the one-year contractual limitation in the policy.