Demurrer to Complaint
(34) Tentative Ruling
Re: Almaraz v. Allstate Insurance Company Superior Court Case No. 25CECG5320
Hearing Date: June 9, 2026 (Dept. 403)
Motion: Demurrer to Complaint
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, June 11, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403.
Tentative Ruling:
To sustain defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).) The prevailing party is directed to submit to this court, within 7 days of service of the minute order, a proposed judgment dismissing the action as to the demurring defendant.
Explanation:
Defendant Allstate Insurance Company demur to the complaint on the basis that the claims against them are barred by the one year statute of limitations for claims against plaintiff’s homeowner’s insurance policy. (Ins. Code, § 2071; Complaint, Ex. 1, Allstate Insurance Company Deluxe Homeowners Policy, p. 18.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action for Breach of Contract and Money Damages for Tortious Bad Faith against demurring defendant arising from a defendant’s rejections of a claim of loss to plaintiff’s insured property. (Complaint, ¶¶ 9-18.)
Where the dates alleged in the complaint, or facts judicially noticeable together with facts alleged in the complaint, show the action is barred by the statute of limitations, a general demurrer lies. (Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch v. Berwald (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 990, 995; Saliter v. Pierce Bros. Mortuaries (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 292, 300; Vaca v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 737, 746
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
However, the running of the statute must appear “clearly and affirmatively” from the face of the complaint. It is not enough that the complaint might be time-barred. (Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42.) Ordinarily, the period of limitations will begin to run without regard to whether the plaintiff is aware of the specific facts necessary to establish his claim, provided that he has a “suspicion of wrongdoing,” which he is charged with once he has “notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry.” (Jolly v.
Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1109–1111.)
Plaintiff alleges his insured property was damaged on April 13, 2024 and he reported the damage to his insurer, defendant Allstate Insurance Company, on September 18, 2024. (Compl.,¶¶ 10-11.) Defendant is alleged to have made a coverage 3
determination on December 10, 2024 rejecting the claim. (Id., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested defendant reconsider the decision and the parties are alleged to have engaged in settlement negotiations until February 18, 2025 that were unsuccessful. (Id., ¶¶ 15-17.) The Allstate insurance policy, attached as an exhibit to the complaint, states, “No suit of action may be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with all policy terms. Any suit of Action must be brought within one year after the inception of loss or damage.” (Id., Ex. 1, Allstate Insurance Company Deluxe Homeowners Policy, p. 18 “Suits Against Us.”) The language within the policy is the same as that of Insurance Code section 2071, California’s Standard Form for fire insurance policies.
As pled, the date of inception of the loss is April 13, 2024. The statute of limitations is tolled during the insurance investigation. (Forman v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 998, 1003.) As pled the investigation began September 18, 2024 and can be deemed concluded as of February 18, 2025 when plaintiff and defendant were unable to resolve the dispute as to defendant’s rejection of coverage after a re-inspection of the loss. (See, Compl., ¶¶ 15-17.) Thus, the statute of limitations was tolled for 153 days. The one year period beginning April 13, 2024 ended on April 13, 2025. Adding the additional 153 days for tolling extended the time to bring an action to Saturday, September 13, 2025. The complaint was filed November 13, 2025, and as such, is timebarred. The general demurrer to the complaint is sustained.
Leave to Amend
“If the plaintiff has not had an opportunity to amend the complaint in response to the demurrer, leave to amend is liberally allowed as a matter of fairness, unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747.) “The burden is on the plaintiff, however, to demonstrate the manner in which the complaint might be amended.” (Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742; see also McClintock v. West, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 556 [demurrer properly sustained without leave to amend where plaintiff did not argue that leave to amend was warranted].)
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the demurrer to demonstrate that the complaint can be amended to plead additional facts to support finding the complaint was filed timely. As such, leave to amend will not be granted.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: lmg on 6-8-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
4