## Facts

- California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.9 revived certain time-barred Northridge earthquake policy-benefits claims for one year beginning January 1, 2001.
- On December 31, 2001, Homie Davaloo and Maurice and Suzie Abdel‑Messih filed separate, coordinated actions against State Farm for breach of contract and insurer bad faith arising from alleged Northridge earthquake damage.
- The original complaints were materially identical and alleged only generally that plaintiffs suffered insured earthquake losses and that State Farm failed to pay benefits.
- The original complaints did not identify policy numbers, policy terms, policy limits, property addresses, any specific claim submitted, or any specific insurer response; they also did not plead facts tying the actions to § 340.9’s revival requirements.
- State Farm demurred on the ground that the pleadings failed to allege essential facts for contract and bad-faith causes of action.
- On June 2, 2003, after § 340.9’s one-year revival window had expired, plaintiffs filed first amended complaints adding plaintiff-specific policy, property, and claim-history allegations and asserted the amendments related back to the 2001 filings.
- State Farm demurred again, contending the actions were untimely and the amended pleadings could not relate back because the originals were devoid of operative facts.
- The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed the actions as time-barred.
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether first amended complaints filed in 2003, adding the first substantive policy and claim facts, relate back to generic Northridge earthquake complaints filed on December 31, 2001 for purposes of § 340.9’s revival period.
2. Whether the original complaints alleged sufficient facts to state claims for breach of an insurance contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments of dismissal.
- The court held the first amended complaints did not relate back because the original complaints were devoid of factual allegations describing a particular dispute, claim for benefits, or facts showing applicability of § 340.9.
- Because relation back was unavailable, the operative filing date was June 2, 2003, which fell outside § 340.9’s one-year revival window; the actions were therefore time-barred.
- Sustaining State Farm’s demurrers without leave to amend was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Under California fact pleading, a plaintiff must allege essential facts with sufficient particularity to inform the defendant of the nature, source, and extent of the claim.
- For insurance breach-of-contract claims, essential allegations generally include the existence of a policy, its essential terms, a covered loss, the insured’s performance of conditions, and the insurer’s breach (such as nonpayment).
- For insurer bad faith, the complaint must allege facts showing unreasonable withholding of benefits under the policy, not mere conclusions.
- Relation back applies when an amendment rests on the same general set of facts, involves the same injury, and refers to the same instrumentality as the original pleading; this presupposes the original pleading states some factual basis for the claim.
- An amended complaint that supplies the factual nucleus for the first time cannot relate back to an original complaint that is essentially fact-free; a limited statutory revival period cannot be preserved by a skeletal filing that fails to plead operative facts within the window.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs could not use relation back to bring Northridge earthquake insurance claims within § 340.9’s revival period where the timely filed original complaints lacked the basic facts necessary to state contract and bad-faith causes of action; the later fact-specific amendments were untimely and the dismissals were affirmed.


Davaloo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 135 Cal. App. 4th 409, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 528 (Ct. App. 2005)