Does Appraisal Toll the Statute of Limitations?

The Problem: A Ticking Clock and a Slow Process

Most California property insurance policies contain a one-year suit limitation provision. This provision originates from California's standard fire policy, codified in California Insurance Code §§ 2070–2071. The statutory language requires the policyholder to commence suit within twelve months after the “inception of the loss.” That clock starts running on the date of the loss — not the date the claim is denied, not the date negotiations break down, and not the date you decide you need a lawyer.

Now consider what happens when appraisal is invoked. The policyholder and insurer disagree on the amount of loss. One side demands appraisal under the policy. Each side selects an appraiser. The appraisers try to agree on an umpire. If they cannot agree, a court appoints one. The panel inspects the property, reviews estimates, and eventually issues an award. This process routinely takes three to six months — and in complex cases involving large losses, contested causation issues, or disagreements over scope, it can take a year or more.

The question is straightforward: while the appraisal process is pending, does the one-year suit limitation clock keep running? Or does invoking appraisal toll— meaning pause — the statute of limitations?

The safer answer in California is that invoking appraisal does nottoll the suit limitation. There is no California Supreme Court decision squarely on point, but the published Court of Appeal authority that does address tolling outside the insurer's active investigation has consistently refused to extend the doctrine. The pattern from Singh, Marselis, and Doheny Park Terrace is one of courts limiting tolling, not expanding it. Experienced California insurance litigators reflect this in practice: they treat appraisal as not tolling, and they protect the deadline by filing a protective lawsuit and requesting a stay. This article explains why the rule comes out that way, the policyholder-side arguments that have nonetheless been raised, and the steps every policyholder should take to make sure the suit clock cannot quietly run out during a months-long appraisal.

The Statutory Framework: Insurance Code § 2071 and the Standard Fire Policy

To understand the problem, you need to understand the source of the one-year suit limitation. Insurance Code § 2071 sets out the California Standard Form Fire Insurance Policy, which every fire insurance policy issued in the state must contain or incorporate. Two provisions in this statutory policy are relevant here, and they sit side by side in the same document without any express connection between them:

The Appraisal Provision:“In case the insured and this company shall fail to agree as to the actual cash value or the amount of loss, then, on the written request of either, each shall select a competent and disinterested appraiser and notify the other of the appraiser selected within 20 days of the request.”

The Suit Limitation Provision:“No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with, and unless commenced within 12 months next after inception of the loss.”

Notice the problem. The statute gives both sides the right to invoke appraisal when they disagree on the amount. It also says the policyholder must file suit within twelve months. But it says nothing about what happens to the suit limitation while the appraisal process is pending. The appraisal clause does not reference the suit limitation clause. The suit limitation clause does not reference the appraisal clause. This silence is the source of the entire debate.

Some scholars have pointed out that Insurance Code § 2071 dates to an era when insurance disputes were resolved much more quickly. The idea that appraisal might consume so much of the limitations period that the policyholder would lose the right to sue may not have been contemplated by the original drafters. Whatever the historical explanation, the silence persists — and policyholders bear the risk.

Why California Courts Have Refused to Extend Tolling Beyond the Investigation Phase

The starting point is Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 674. The California Supreme Court held that the one-year suit limitation in standard fire insurance policies is equitably tolled “from the time the insured files a timely notice [of his claim], pursuant to policy notice provisions, to the time the insurer formally denies the claim in writing.” The rationale was specific and narrow: the policyholder should not be penalized for the time consumed by the insurer's investigation, but the central idea of the limitation provision — that the insured will only have twelve months to institute suit — is preserved by ending the tolling at denial.

The published Court of Appeal decisions that have addressed extending Prudential-LMIbeyond the notice-to-denial window have consistently refused to extend it. That pattern matters because it is the doctrinal foundation any pro-tolling argument has to get past.

Singh v. Allstate Ins. Co.(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 135 — Reconsideration Requests Do Not Extend Tolling

In Singh, after the insurer issued an unequivocal denial, the insureds asked the carrier to reconsider. The Court of Appeal held that the reconsideration request did notre-engage the tolling period. “The justifications for equitable tolling are absent, once the carrier has initially denied the claim,” the court wrote, because by that point the insured has the information needed to file suit. The court framed an unequivocal denial as the “definitive demarcation point for limitations purposes” — tolling stops, and the clock runs.

Singh has been applied repeatedly to reject attempts to push Prudential-LMIbeyond its narrow scope. Federal courts applying California law continue to cite it for the rule that “once an unequivocal denial has been made, the insured's later requests for reconsideration ... do not extend the period of equitable tolling.” See, e.g., Barbey v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2025, No. 24-5424) (mem.).

Marselis v. Allstate Ins. Co.(2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 122 — The Court Rejected an Effort to Extend Tolling

Marselis is even more direct on the question of whether Prudential-LMIshould be expanded. The insured argued the limitation period should be tolled even after the insurer paid the claim, on the theory that no unequivocal written denial had ever issued. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument and affirmed judgment for Allstate, writing: “Nothing justifies judicial extension of the equitable tolling rule to create a right to reopen claims that have been paid.” The court explained that the existing tolling during investigation already gives the insured “ample opportunity to press a further claim,” and that the limitations provision's twelve-month purpose must be respected.

Marselisis the published California authority closest to an explicit instruction not to invent new tolling categories. That instruction applies just as much to a proposed “tolling during appraisal” category as it did to the proposed post-payment category the Marselis court rejected.

Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn. v. Truck Ins. Exchange(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076 — Equitable Tolling Rejected on the Facts

Doheny Park is often cited as a pro-policyholder case because the Court of Appeal reinstated a Northridge earthquake claim on equitable estoppel grounds. But on the equitable tollingquestion — which is what matters for the appraisal-tolling analysis — the court ruled the other way. It held that equitable tolling could not apply once the insurer had made an unequivocal denial. Equitable estoppel and equitable tolling are different doctrines that require different proof: tolling pauses the clock during a defined period (notice to denial); estoppel prevents the insurer from raising the limitation defense because of conduct the insured reasonably relied on.

For appraisal tolling, the takeaway is that Doheny Park, like Singhand Marselis, treats Prudential-LMI's tolling rule as having fixed endpoints — it does not get re-engaged by later events.

Ashou v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 748 — A Narrow Exception When the Insurer Reopens the File

Ashou is the case policyholder-side attorneys most often invoke when arguing that tolling should re-engage after denial. It does extend tolling in one specific situation: when the insurer affirmatively agrees to reopen the file and actively reinvestigates the claim, the insured may reasonably expect the claim is again under active consideration, and that period can be tolled. But Ashouis careful to limit the rule. The court emphasized that “a mere request does not automatically reopen the claim, nor does it impose an obligation on the insurer to respond.” The insurer's conduct — not the insured's — is what triggers renewed tolling.

Importantly, invoking appraisal is not the same as the insurer agreeing to reopen the file. Appraisal is a discrete, statutory dispute-resolution mechanism for valuation; it does not by its terms put the underlying coverage determination back into active reinvestigation. Treating appraisal as triggering a new Ashou-style tolling period would require extending Ashouwell beyond its facts — in a direction Singh, Marselis, and Doheny Park all counsel against.

Policyholder Arguments That Have Been Raised (And Why They Have Not Prevailed)

Policyholder-side attorneys have constructed several arguments for tolling during appraisal. They are not frivolous. But none has produced a published California appellate decision squarely adopting them, and the existing Singh / Marselis / Doheny Parkline of authority cuts against them. The arguments worth knowing about — mainly so an insured can recognize them if an attorney evaluates them on specific facts — are:

1. Extending Prudential-LMI's Equitable Logic to Appraisal

The argument runs that if the policyholder should not be penalized for time consumed by the insurer's investigation, the policyholder should also not be penalized for time consumed by appraisal — another policy-authorized process both parties are participating in. The weakness is that Marselisrejected exactly this kind of “extension by analogy” reasoning, holding that the existing tolling rule already balances the insured's interests against the limitation provision's twelve-month purpose, and that judicial extension is not justified.

2. Implied Waiver from the Insurer's Participation

Some policyholder briefs argue that an insurer that demands appraisal — or that actively participates in one the insured demanded — cannot consistently insist that the suit-limitation clock continued to run. This is a fairness argument, not a doctrinal one. It has more traction where the insurer was the party that invoked appraisal, and even more if the insurer also made statements that could be argued to induce reliance (which would more naturally be framed as equitable estoppel under Doheny Park). On a clean record, however, mere participation in an appraisal the policy authorizes is unlikely to be treated as a waiver of the suit-limitation defense.

3. Appraisal's Procedural Classification Under the Arbitration Code

California places insurance appraisal under the procedural framework of the California Arbitration Act, CCP §§ 1280–1294.2. The mechanism is a 1961 amendment to CCP § 1280(a) that expanded “agreement to arbitrate” to include “agreements providing for valuations, appraisals and similar proceedings,” applied to insurance appraisal in Appalachian Ins. Co. v. Rivcom Corp. (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 818. Policyholder-side attorneys sometimes argue that this classification supports tolling by analogy to arbitration. The weakness is that the Appalachianframework concerns procedural rules for enforcing and confirming appraisal awards — it does not by its terms create a tolling rule, and no published decision has used it to override the Singh / Marselis limits.

4. The Impracticality of Parallel Proceedings

The remaining argument is policy-based: requiring a policyholder to file a protective lawsuit while appraisal is pending creates duplicative work and expense. This is true. But California courts have not treated impracticality as a sufficient reason to invent a new tolling category — the answer the case law actually gives is the file-and-stay procedure discussed later in this article. Filing a protective complaint and immediately requesting a stay is the established mechanism for avoiding the duplicative proceedings.

Why the Rule Comes Out This Way: Statute, Policy, and Doctrine All Align

The case-law pattern in Singh / Marselis / Doheny Park is not an accident. It reflects how California treats statutes of limitations, equitable tolling, and the relationship between contractual dispute resolution and the right to sue.

Appraisal Is Not “Suit”

The policy's suit-limitation provision — which comes directly from Insurance Code § 2071 — requires the insured to commence suit within twelve months. Appraisal is not suit. It is a statutory dispute-resolution mechanism for determining the amount of loss. Invoking it does not commence an action, does not stop the limitations clock by its own force, and does not relieve the insured of the obligation to file a complaint within the limitations window.

Insurance Code § 2071 Is Silent on Tolling During Appraisal

Both the appraisal provision and the suit-limitation provision are set out in the same statutory standard fire policy in § 2071. The Legislature could have included express language tolling the suit limitation during appraisal. It did not. California courts have not treated that silence as ambiguity inviting them to read tolling in. Contra proferentem does not apply — the language comes from the statute, not the insurer's drafting.

Equitable Tolling Is Discretionary and Narrowly Drawn

Equitable tolling is a discretionary doctrine. Even where it has been recognized, the California Supreme Court in Prudential-LMIdefined it narrowly — from notice of claim to denial — and tied that to a specific rationale (the policyholder should not be penalized for time consumed by the insurer's investigation). Extending the doctrine to appraisal requires expanding both the endpoints and the rationale, which is exactly what Marselis said California courts will not do.

The File-and-Stay Procedure Is the Built-In Answer

California courts that have addressed the question note that the policyholder is not trapped — the policyholder can file a protective lawsuit and request a stay pending appraisal. That option, discussed in detail below, is the established mechanism for avoiding the cost and waste of parallel proceedings while preserving the right to sue. The availability of file-and-stay weakens any argument that equitable tolling is necessary to avoid unfairness.

Additional Case-Law Context: Appraisal's Limited Scope and the Arbitration Overlay

Several other California cases come up in this analysis, mostly because they define what appraisal is and how it relates to the rest of the claim. They do not change the core rule from Singh / Marselis / Doheny Park— appraisal does not toll the suit limitation in California — but they are worth understanding because attorneys evaluating these claims will reference them.

Appalachian Ins. Co. v. Rivcom Corp. (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 818

Appalachianplaced California insurance appraisal under the procedural framework of the California Arbitration Act — not as a general arbitration capable of deciding coverage, but as a statutory proceeding governed by CCP §§ 1280–1294.2 for purposes of enforcement, judicial review, vacatur, and umpire disclosures. Appraisal awards are subject to confirmation, vacatur, and correction under CCP §§ 1285–1288. This procedural overlay is sometimes invoked by policyholder-side attorneys as supporting a tolling-by-analogy argument, but no published decision has used Appalachian to override the Singh / Marselis limits on equitable tolling.

Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Sharma (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1060

Sharma defines the scope of appraisal: appraisers determine the amountof loss and cannot resolve coverage questions. That matters for the tolling analysis only indirectly — because appraisal is narrowly limited to valuation, a policyholder with broader claims (coverage disputes, causation issues, bad faith) cannot rely on appraisal to substitute for litigation on those issues. The right-to-sue clock still has to be preserved for the broader claims.

For a full discussion of Sharma and the scope of appraisal generally, see our article on California appraisal case law.

Kacha v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1023

Kacha reinforces Sharma: appraisers may not make causation determinations absent a clear and convincing showing that both parties stipulated to expand the appraisal's scope. The case also illustrates the practical complexity of contested appraisal proceedings — the Kacha appraisal arose from a Cedar Fire claim and required panel selection, umpire appointment, property inspection, and contested estimate evaluation. The longer the appraisal takes, the more important it becomes to have already filed protectively, because the limitations clock is still running.

Brehm v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1225

Brehmwas an underinsured-motorist arbitration case, not a property appraisal case. It addressed the insurer's good-faith duties during arbitration but did not decide a suit-limitation tolling question. Policyholder-side attorneys sometimes argueBrehm's good-faith framework supports a fairness argument that appraisal should toll the limitations period, but the analogy is contested and Brehmhas not been cited by any published California decision to extend tolling to appraisal.

Trial Court Decisions

Trial courts have addressed the tolling question in individual cases, and outcomes have varied with the facts. Because trial-court rulings are not published, they do not create binding precedent. The reliable guidance comes from the published Court of Appeal authority — which, as discussed above, has been consistent in declining to extend Prudential-LMI's tolling rule beyond the notice-to-denial window.

For a deeper discussion of how equitable tolling works in the insurance context generally, including edge cases and clock calculation issues, see our articles on equitable tolling and equitable tolling edge cases.

Other States: A Different Analysis

This article focuses on California, but policyholders in other states should be aware that the analysis may differ significantly depending on jurisdiction.

• Florida:Florida treats appraisal as a contractual process, not as arbitration. Florida's statute of limitations for insurance claims is typically five years, which reduces the urgency of the tolling question — but it does not eliminate it. Florida courts have generally not extended equitable tolling to the appraisal context as broadly as California courts have in the investigation context.
• Texas: Texas also treats appraisal as a contractual mechanism rather than arbitration. Texas courts have addressed the relationship between appraisal and the statute of limitations, but the analysis is governed by Texas-specific doctrines and a different statutory framework.
• New York:New York generally treats appraisal as a contractual process. The statute of limitations for first-party insurance claims is six years under New York law, giving policyholders more time — but the interaction between appraisal and the limitations period is still fact-specific.
• States with express tolling provisions: Some states have statutes or case law that expressly address whether the statute of limitations is tolled during appraisal or arbitration proceedings. If your claim is in a state other than California, research the specific rules that apply.

The key difference for California policyholders is that the Appalachiandecision classifies appraisal as arbitration, which gives the tolling argument additional doctrinal support not available in most other jurisdictions. But this also means California precedent on appraisal tolling may not be persuasive in states that treat appraisal differently.

Equitable Tolling, Appraisal Tolling, and Contractual Tolling: Three Different Things

The broader framework of equitable tolling in California insurance claims has three distinct pieces. Conflating them is how policyholders lose deadlines.

• Equitable tolling during the insurer's investigation is the rule from Prudential-LMI. The clock is tolled from timely notice of claim to the insurer's formal written denial. This much is well-established and applied routinely — but it has clear endpoints.
• “Tolling during appraisal”is not an established California rule. Published Court of Appeal authority has gone the other way —Singh, Marselis, and Doheny Park Terrace all declined to extend Prudential-LMI's tolling beyond its notice-to-denial window. Treating appraisal as tolling is a litigation argument with weak support, not a rule an insured can plan around.
• Contractual tolling— a written tolling agreement signed by the carrier — is different from both. It pauses the limitations period by contract, not by judicial discretion. Where the carrier will sign one, it solves the problem. But many carriers will refuse, so an insured cannot rely on getting one.

The practical takeaway: Prudential-LMItolling during the insurer's investigation gives more time than the raw twelve months suggests, but that extra time ends at the formal written denial. Nothing in current California law guarantees more tolling after that. The protective move is to file a complaint and request a stay — the procedure California courts treat as the answer.

The Primary Protection: File a Protective Lawsuit and Request a Stay

Because California courts have not extended equitable tolling to appraisal, the established protective measure is to file a complaint before the limitations period expires and ask the court to stay the case pending the outcome of appraisal. Many experienced insurance litigators do this as a matter of course whenever appraisal is pending and the suit-limitation deadline is approaching — they do not wait for a tolling agreement and they do not rely on equitable tolling.

The mechanics are straightforward. Counsel files a complaint alleging breach of the insurance contract (and potentially bad faith, depending on the facts). At the same time — often in the same filing — counsel requests that the court stay all proceedings pending completion of the appraisal. Courts routinely grant these stays. The appraisal was invoked under the policy, both parties are participating, and there is no reason to proceed with litigation discovery until the panel has determined the amount of loss. The lawsuit does not need to advance to discovery, depositions, or trial while appraisal is pending — the court puts everything on hold.

Once the appraisal award is issued, the parties evaluate whether the lawsuit needs to continue. If the appraisal award resolves the dispute, the case can be dismissed. If issues remain — coverage disputes, bad-faith claims, disputes over the appraisal process itself — the lawsuit is already filed and the stay can be lifted. The cost of filing a protective complaint is trivial compared to losing the right to sue entirely.

Supplemental Protection: A Written Tolling Agreement

A written tolling agreement from the carrier is a useful supplement to a protective filing — not a substitute for it. A tolling agreement is a contract in which the insurer agrees in writing to pause the limitations clock for a specified period (typically through the appraisal process plus a reasonable window afterward, often ninety days, to evaluate the award and decide whether to push forward with litigation).

Where the carrier will sign one, a tolling agreement removes the deadline pressure on the appraisal without requiring an immediate complaint. Some carriers will sign; others have blanket policies against signing them. An insured cannot count on getting a tolling agreement, which is why the protective lawsuit is the primary protection and the tolling agreement is the supplement.

How to Request a Tolling Agreement From the Carrier

The request does not need to be complicated. A written communication — letter or email — to the carrier's claims department or assigned adjuster is sufficient. The request should:

• Identify the claim number, policy number, and date of loss.
• Reference the pending or recently invoked appraisal.
• State that the policyholder is requesting a written tolling agreement to preserve the right to file suit while the appraisal process is completed.
• Propose specific terms: the limitations period is tolled from the date of the appraisal demand through a specified number of days after the appraisal award is issued (ninety days is common and reasonable).
• Request that the tolling agreement be signed by someone with binding authority — a claims manager, supervisor, or coverage counsel, not just a field adjuster or independent adjuster who may lack the authority to bind the company.

Keep the request matter-of-fact. You are not accusing the carrier of anything. You are proposing a reasonable administrative arrangement that allows both sides to focus on appraisal without the policyholder being forced to file a protective lawsuit. Frame it as mutually beneficial.

The Carrier's Refusal as Evidence of Bad Faith

A carrier's refusal to enter into a tolling agreement while simultaneously participating in appraisal may be relevant to a fair claims settlement practices analysis. Participating in a process that consumes time while refusing to pause the clock is not reasonable behavior. The carrier is effectively saying: “We want to resolve this through appraisal, but we will not protect your right to sue if appraisal fails.” That position is difficult to reconcile with the insurer's duty to deal fairly and in good faith with its policyholders.

Document any refusal in writing and preserve it. It may support both a tolling argument and a bad faith claim later. Specifically, California Insurance Code § 790.03(h) and the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (10 CCR § 2695.7) require insurers to deal with claims reasonably and in good faith. An insurer that invokes or participates in appraisal while deliberately allowing the suit limitation to lapse may be violating these obligations.

Practical Checklist: Protecting Yourself During Appraisal

Whether you are invoking appraisal or responding to the insurer's demand, protect yourself by following these steps:

• Calculate the suit-limitation deadline.Start with the date of loss and count forward twelve months — or twenty-four months if the loss is related to a Governor-declared state of emergency under § 2071. Then applyPrudential-LMI tolling for the period from timely notice of claim to formal written denial. The calculation is not always straightforward; consult an attorney for the specific tolled deadline.
• Plan to file a protective lawsuit before the deadline.Consult an attorney well in advance — not in the final weeks. The attorney can file a complaint and request a stay pending appraisal. This is the protection California case law actually supports.
• Also request a written tolling agreement.A signed tolling agreement is useful supplemental protection where the carrier will sign one. Request it in writing at the time appraisal is invoked. But do not wait for it — if it does not come, file the protective complaint.
• Document every request and non-response. If the carrier refuses or ignores a tolling-agreement request, preserve the documentation. It may be relevant to bad-faith analysis later.
• Do not rely on equitable tolling to extend through appraisal. The published California authority is against extending Prudential-LMI tolling beyond the notice-to-denial window. A protective filing is the reliable protection.
• Keep a detailed timeline. Date of loss, claim filing, denial, appraisal demand, every communication about tolling, every step in the appraisal process. The timeline matters both for calculating the deadline and as evidence in any later litigation.
• If a Public Adjuster is handling the claim, raise the deadline issue directly. A Public Adjuster cannot provide legal advice about statutes of limitations but should be aware of the issue and able to refer to an attorney if the deadline is approaching. If a Public Adjuster invokes appraisal without addressing the tolling question, ask about it.
• If an attorney is handling the claim, confirm the deadline plan.Experienced insurance attorneys handle the protective-filing question as a matter of course. If an attorney was retained after appraisal was already underway, confirm they are tracking the limitations deadline and have a plan for the protective complaint.

Key Takeaways

• The working rule in California is that invoking appraisal does not toll the one-year suit limitation. The California Supreme Court has not issued a decision squarely on point, but the published Court of Appeal authority (Singh, Marselis, Doheny Park) has consistently declined to extend Prudential-LMI's tolling rule beyond the notice-to-denial window. Experienced California insurance litigators operate under the rule that appraisal does not toll.
• Prudential-LMItolls the suit limitation from timely notice of claim to formal written denial. That window is well-established. Anything beyond it — tolling for reconsideration requests, tolling for settlement disputes, tolling for appraisal — has been rejected by published California authority.
• For losses related to a Governor-declared state of emergency under Gov. Code § 8558(b), Ins. Code § 2071 extends the suit-limitation period from twelve months to twenty-four months. Confirm whether the longer clock applies before any deadline calculation.
• The primary protection is to file a protective lawsuit before the deadline and request a stay pending appraisal. This is standard practice among experienced insurance litigators. It eliminates the tolling question entirely and costs relatively little compared to losing the right to sue.
• A written tolling agreement signed by the carrier is useful supplemental protection where available. Request it at the time appraisal is invoked. But many carriers will refuse or not respond, so do not rely on getting one — file the protective complaint if the agreement does not come.
• The policyholder-side arguments for tolling during appraisal — analogy toPrudential-LMI, implied waiver from insurer participation, theAppalachianarbitration-overlay framework, the impracticality of parallel proceedings — are not frivolous, but no published California decision has adopted them. They are litigation positions, not deadline planning.
• A carrier's refusal to enter into a tolling agreement while participating in appraisal does not change the deadline analysis — the protective filing is still the answer — but the refusal may be relevant to a later bad-faith analysis.
• Other states analyze this differently. California's case law pattern is consistent in declining to extend tolling, but if the claim is in another state, consult counsel familiar with that state's rules.

Related Articles

• Insurance Appraisal in California: The Complete Guide — How appraisal works, the standard fire policy, and what to expect from the process.
• Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations — How the one-year suit limitation clock is paused during the insurer's investigation.
• California Appraisal Case Law and the Arbitration Code — Key cases including Sharma, Kacha, Lee, Doan, Lambert, and Mahnke.
• California Insurance Claim Deadlines and Timeframes — Every deadline your California insurance company must meet.
• Insurance Bad Faith — What constitutes bad faith and how it relates to the carrier's handling of the appraisal and tolling question.

Written by Leland Coontz, licensed California Public Adjuster

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Insurance policies and applicable law vary by state and by policy form. Consult with a licensed professional regarding your specific situation.

Written by Leland Coontz III, Licensed Public Adjuster, CA License #2B53445.