Sheridan v. Mid-Century Insurance CA3

Filed 12/16/22 Sheridan v. Mid-Century Insurance CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

CHRISTOPHER SHERIDAN,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C093978

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCV-0042251)

MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Mid-Century Insurance Company (Mid-Century) issued a homeowner’s insurance policy to Christopher Sheridan. After Sheridan’s girlfriend reported a theft from the home, Mid-Century sent a payment to Sheridan that deducted depreciation. More than a year later, Sheridan sued Mid-Century, alleging it breached its obligations under the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mid-Century, ruling that Sheridan’s claims were barred by Sheridan’s failure to file suit within one year of the accrual of his claims as required by the policy. Sheridan now contends the trial court did not properly consider a conflict between two Mid-Century letters, and there was a third possible letter that would also support his

1

position. But because he never asserted those specific arguments in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, his contentions are forfeited. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In July 2016 Mid-Century issued a homeowner’s insurance to Sheridan for his residence in Lincoln, California. In August 2016, Sheridan’s girlfriend reported the theft of personal items from the Lincoln residence. By a letter dated March 13, 2017, Mid-Century enclosed payment for Sheridan’s covered August 2016 losses based on replacement cost less any applicable depreciation based on the age and condition of the property. Mid-Century told Sheridan that if he intended to recover withheld depreciation, he had to submit a copy of his invoices or receipts by March 13, 2018. In a subsequent letter dated March 27, 2017, Mid-Century told Sheridan: “We’ve completed the adjustment of your loss and we are closing your claim. While we welcome any additional information you may wish to provide, the claim will not be reopened unless we notify you of such in writing.” The letter asked Sheridan to “refer to the Section I—Property Conditions part of your policy, which states: [¶] . . . [¶] Suit on or arising out of the SECTION I—PROPERTY COVERAGE of this policy must be brought within one year after inception of the loss or damage.” Later, in a letter dated September 26, 2017, Mid-Century told Sheridan it enclosed two checks for the loss he suffered in August 2016, because the original checks Mid- Century sent to Sheridan had expired. The September 26 letter again stated: “We’ve completed the adjustment of your loss and we are closing your claim. While we welcome any additional information you may wish to provide, the claim will not be reopened unless we notify you of such in writing.” On December 18, 2018, Sheridan filed a lawsuit against Mid-Century, bringing three causes of action, including breach of contract. Sheridan claimed Mid-Century