Emperador v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

Ninth Circuit

Emperador v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

213 F. App'x 559

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 2006

DocketNo. 05-55050

StatusPublished

This text of 213 F. App'x 559 (Emperador v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emperador v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance, 213 F. App'x 559 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

After Prudential took the procedural steps set forth in section 1691 of the California Civil Code to rescind Emperador’s homeowner’s insurance policy, Emperador had a choice of bringing a breach of contract claim or seeking relief based on rescission under section 1692 of the California Civil Code. See Akin v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 140 Cal.App.4th 291, 296, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 284 (Cal.Ct.App.2006). Her election to bring a breach of contract claim was not barred by Prudential’s attempted rescission. See Perini Corp. v. Orion Ins. Co., 331 F.Supp. 453, 457 (E.D.Cal.1971). Nor was Emperador’s contract claim barred by the statute of limitation. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 340.9 (West 2006); see also Campanelli v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 1086, 1096 (9th Cir.2003). Therefore, the district court erred in determining that Emperador’s action was time barred. Because we reverse and remand for further proceedings, we do not reach Emperador’s remaining arguments.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

After Prudential took the procedural steps set forth in section 1691 of the California Civil Code to rescind Emperador’s homeowner’s insurance policy, Emperador had a choice of bringing a breach of contract claim or seeking relief based on rescission under section 1692 of the California Civil Code. See Akin v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 140 Cal.App.4th 291, 296, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 284 (Cal.Ct.App.2006). Her election to bring a breach of contract claim was not barred by Prudential’s attempted rescission. See Perini Corp. v. Orion Ins. Co., 331 F.Supp. 453, 457 (E.D.Cal.1971). Nor was Emperador’s contract claim barred by the statute of limitation. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 340.9 (West 2006); see also Campanelli v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 1086, 1096 (9th Cir.2003). Therefore, the district court erred in determining that Emperador’s action was time barred. Because we reverse and remand for further proceedings, we do not reach Emperador’s remaining arguments.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Vito Campanelli Peggy Campanelli John Caudillo Barbara Caudillo Neil Damrow Gayle Damrow Nancy Durrant Garfield Ecung Debra Ecung George Giakoumakis Mary Lou Giakoumakis Donald Huner Tommie Jenkins Carrie Jenkins Brenda Kalosh Donald Menck Florence Menck Cheryl Mondheim William Noah Terry Noah Roy Rosenblatt Lorraine Rosenblatt Darla Severn Loyal Smith Mildred Stafford Marilyn Taber, and James House Pat House v. Allstate Life Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Shadowbrook Design Group, Inc., a California Corporation W.S.C., a California Corporation, Dba Western States Construction, Dba Western States Geotechnical, AKA Western States Companies, Vito Campanelli Peggy Campanelli John Caudillo Barbara Caudillo Neil Damrow Gayle Damrow Nancy Durrant Garfield Ecung Debra Ecung George Giakoumakis Mary Lou Giakoumakis James House Pat House Donald Huner Tommie Jenkins Carrie Jenkins Brenda Kalosh Donald Menck Florence Menck William Noah Terry Noah Roy Rosenblatt Lorraine Rosenblatt Darla Severn Loyal Smith Mildred Stafford Marilyn Taber, and Cheryl Mondheim v. Allstate Life Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Shadowbrook Design Group, Inc., a California Corporation W.S.C., a California Corporation, Dba Western States Construction, Dba Western States Geotechnical, AKA Western States Companies, Vito Campanelli Peggy Campanelli John Caudillo Barbara Caudillo Neil Damrow Gayle Damrow Nancy Durrant Garfield Ecung Debra Ecung James House Pat House Tommie Jenkins Carrie Jenkins Brenda Kalosh Donald Menck Florence Menck Cheryl Mondheim William Noah Terry Noah Roy Rosenblatt Lorraine Rosenblatt Darla Severn Loyal Smith Mildred Stafford Marilyn Taber Donald Huber, and George Giakoumakis Mary Lou Giakoumakis v. Allstate Life Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, Vito Campanelli Peggy Campanelli John Caudillo Barbara Caudillo Neil Damrow Gayle Damrow Nancy Durrant Garfield Ecung Debra Ecung George Giakoumakis Mary Lou Giakoumakis James House Pat House Donald Huner Tommie Jenkins Carrie Jenkins Brenda Kalosh Donald Menck Florence Menck Cheryl Mondheim Roy Rosenblatt Lorraine Rosenblatt Darla Severn Loyal Smith Mildred Stafford Marilyn Taber, and William Noah, Terry Noah v. Allstate Life Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Shadowbrook Design Group, Inc., a California Corporation W.S.C., a California Corporation, Dba Western States Construction, Dba Western States Geotechnical, AKA Western States Companies

322 F.3d 1086 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Perini Corporation v. Orion Insurance Co.

331 F. Supp. 453 (E.D. California, 1971)

Akin v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 284 (California Court of Appeal, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 F. App'x 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emperador-v-prudential-property-casualty-insurance-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack