208 Cal. App. 4th 1185
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff John Me Doe sues four Catholic Church entities for childhood sexual abuse by a parish priest in 1987–1988.
- The trial court sustained demurrers, holding the claims time-barred due to the statute of limitations.
- Plaintiff alleged Insurance Code § 11583 tolling because counseling was paid for by an insurer and he was not given notice of the limitations period.
- Plaintiff discovered his adult-onset psychological injuries in 2008 and retained counsel that year.
- The case history details the evolution of California child sex-abuse limitations, including revival provisions in 2003 and tolling concepts.
- The appellate court reverses, finds § 11583 tolling applicable, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 11583 tolling applicable here? | Doe alleges insurer-paid counseling constitutes advance payment of damages tolling the period. | Doe did not receipt discover a payment of damages; counseling not an advance payment under § 11583. | Yes; tolling applies, time-bar suspended. |
| Does § 340.1 coexist with § 11583 tolling after 2003? | Tolling under § 11583 can extend the period, aligning with the 2003 expansion. | Quarry imposes an absolute 26-year cutoff; no tolling beyond. | No inconsistency; tolling can extend the period under § 11583. |
| Did the discovery of adult-onset injuries in 2008 trigger timely suits under the 2003 revival? | Enlarged discovery-based period in 2003 allows timely action if tolled until discovery in 2008. | Revival restrictions apply; plaintiff must sue within revival window if tolled. | Plaintiff could sue timely due to tolling under § 11583 and 2003 expansion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quarry v. Doe I, 53 Cal.4th 945 (2012) (extended discovery rule and revival provisions for child sex abuse claims)
- Belton v. Bowers Ambulance Service, 20 Cal.4th 928 (1999) (tolling under three-year outside period allows tolling exceptions; compares to 340.5)
- Maisel v. San Francisco State University, 134 Cal.App.3d 689 (1982) (voluntary treatment payments can constitute advance payment of damages)
- Associated Truck Parts, Inc. v. Superior Court, 228 Cal.App.3d 864 (1991) (notice requirement under § 11583 tolling; strategic considerations)
- Dutra v. Eagleson, 146 Cal.App.4th 216 (2006) (standards for reviewing demurrers and statutory interpretation)