Timing Is Everything When Suing a Dead Person
The death of a defendant before a lawsuit is filed or during the pendency of a lawsuit creates very complex issues and is procedurally taxing for any plaintiff lawyer.
March 05, 2019 at 06:50 PM
6 minute read
The death of a defendant before a lawsuit is filed or during the pendency of a lawsuit creates very complex issues and is procedurally taxing for any plaintiff lawyer. In fact, the risk of a plaintiff's claim being barred is substantial given the strict rules that must be followed pursuant to both the Code of Civil Procedure and the Probate Code.
The first thing a Plaintiff should do when he or she finds out a defendant is dead is determine whether he or she is seeking damages within the decedent's insurance policy limits. Probate Code sections 550 through 554 governs claims against a decedent within insurance policy limits whereas California Code of Civil Procedure §§336.2, 337.40 through 377.42, and Probate Code §9390 governs claims for damages in excess of a decedent's insurance policy.
If a Plaintiff is limiting his or her cause of action to the insurance policy limits, then a complaint may be filed within one year after the expiration of the applicable limitations period so long as the defendant/decedent died within the applicable limitation period. Prob. Code. §550, 551. For example, if John Doe gets hit by a vehicle on Jan. 1, 2010 and the driver dies in September 2011, John Doe has until Jan. 1, 2013 (3 years) to file a tort action against the decedent to recover damages within the decedent's insurance policy limits. Probate Code 550 et seq. intends to protect plaintiffs who are seeking damages that are covered by the decedent's insurance policy and the plaintiff may not know at the time he or she files an action that the defendant was deceased, thus providing them with a one year “grace period” to file a lawsuit under this statutory scheme. This limitation is further set out in Probate Code §554 which states that “either the damages sought in an action under this chapter shall be within the limits and coverage of the insurance, or recovery of damages outside the limits or coverage of the insurance shall be waived. A judgement in favor of the Plaintiff in this action is enforceable only from the insurance coverage and not against property in the estate.” Prob. Code. §554.
However, if the Plaintiff wants to sue the decedent for damages beyond the decedent's insurance policy limits, then the Plaintiff has only one year from the time of the decedent's death to bring an action or the claims are forever barred. Code Civ. Proc. §336.2. This harsh rule does not consider the limitations period of the underlying action or whether the Plaintiff knew the defendant was dead. Using the example above, Plaintiff John Doe would only have until September 2012 (one year from the defendant's death) to bring his tort claim against the driver or his action would be barred. This is true even though the applicable tort limitations period (two years) would otherwise allow him to bring an action until January 2012. The purpose of the one-year limitations period applicable to claims of creditors against a decedent's estate is to protect decedents' estates from creditors' stale claims. See Stoltenberg v. Newman (App. 2 Dist. 2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 287, rehearing denied, review denied, on subsequent appeal 215 Cal.App.4th 1225. Thus, it rightfully promotes finality in legal affairs associated with death.
It must also be noted that when you sue a decedent to recover damages in excess of the policy limit, the Plaintiff must comply with specific creditor claim procedures prior to filing the lawsuit. See Code Civ. Proc. §377.40 et seq; Prob. Code §9351, 552, 9390(c). Plaintiffs must file a creditor's claim against the decedent's estate in probate court within either four months from the date that the letters of administration are first issued to a personal representative or 60 days after notice of administration is given to the creditor—whichever is later. Prob. Code sections 9100 et seq., The personal representative of the decedent's estate has 30 days to accept to pay or reject the claim. Prob. Code §9256. If 30 days goes by without any response from the estate's personal representative, the creditor's claim is deemed rejected. Ibid. Once the claim is rejected, the Plaintiff must file the lawsuit within three months of the rejection or the suit will be time barred. Prob. Code §§9352, 9353, 9371. It is important to note that once the creditor's claim is filed, the one-year time bar pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §336.2 is tolled. Nevertheless, the creditor's claim must be filed within one year of the decedent's death or the claim is barred entirely.
If probate for the decedent's estate has not been opened, the Plaintiff may open probate on his or her own behalf as a creditor with the intent to reject his or her own creditor's claim. See Prob. Code §800 (allowing any interested person to commence probate proceedings for administration); Prob. Code §48 (including a creditor in the definition of “interested person”). From there, there are additional procedural hurdles the plaintiff must go through to be able to attach or marshal the decedent's assets to satisfy the creditor's claim, including filing a petition to be appointed special or general administrator of the decedent's estate and filing several unfamiliar judicial council forms.
Although this procedure may seem daunting, especially for plaintiff attorneys unfamiliar with probate, if done correctly a plaintiff will still get his day in court. In sum, it is paramount that Plaintiffs' counsel be familiar with these rules or he or she risks forfeiting his client's otherwise valid cause of action.
Brian S. Kabateck is a consumer rights attorney and founder of Kabateck LLP in Los Angeles. He represents plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits, mass torts litigation, class actions, insurance bad faith lawsuits, insurance litigation and commercial contingency litigation.
Stephanie Charlin is an associate with Kabateck LLP with an expertise in consumer class actions, personal injury, product liability actions, wrongful death and insurance bad faith claims.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCalifornia’s Workplace Violence Laws: Protecting Victims’ Rights in the Workplace
6 minute read'Nothing Is Good for the Consumer Right Now': Experts Weigh Benefits, Drawbacks of Updated Real Estate Commission Policies
FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Most Noncompetes, but Immediate Legal Challenges Ensue
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 2'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 3Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 4A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 5Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250