Jessica Cantrall v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Twin City Fire…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSICA CANTRALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP, HARTFORD FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, TWIN CITY
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE
MIDWEST, HARTFORD CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD
ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY
COMPANY, HARTFORD SPECIALITY
COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17319
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01863-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
JAN 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

Submitted January 14, 2015 **
San Francisco, California
Before: M. SMITH, NGUYEN, AND FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
In this diversity putative class action, Plaintiff Jessica Cantrall files suit
against Defendants Hartford Financial Services Group and several affiliated
Hartford entities. Cantrall purports to represent a class of California consumers
who allege that they were charged more for cell phone insurance from 2001 to July
2005 than the rates that the Hartford defendants filed by statute with the California
Department of Insurance. The district court dismissed Cantrall’s Complaint on
California statute of limitations grounds. We affirm the district court’s decision.
Cantrall filed this action well after the applicable four-year statute of
limitations expired in 2009. California courts generally do not apply the discovery
rule to toll a statute of limitations where public filings, required by statute, contain
the information relevant to a claim. See Util. Cost Mgmt. v. Indian Wells Water
Dist., 36 P.3d 2, 10 (Cal. 2001). Hartford published a completed rate application in
2004, which was required by the California Insurance Code. See Cal. Ins. Code §
1861.05 (“Every insurer which desires to change any rate shall file a complete rate
application with the commissioner. A complete rate application shall include all
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 4 --

data referred to in Sections 1857.7, 1857.9, 1857.15, and 1864 and such other
information as the commissioner may require.”).
Additionally, the district court denied Cantrall leave to amend her complaint
because it determined that an amended complaint would be futile. Since an
amended complaint would have been subject to the same statute of limitations
issues, the district court was well within its discretion to deny leave to amend.
Cantrall claims that, if she were allowed to amend her complaint, she would
have been able to support allegations that the Hartford defendants committed fraud
by not disclosing the rate difference to her. Although allegations of fraud would
have tolled the statute of limitations, Cantrall’s fraud claim does not have merit.
Cantrall alleges that Hartford complied with its statutory duty to file its insurance
rates under California Insurance Code Sections 1861.05. Compliance with
statutory requirements necessarily required disclosure through the filing of rates.
Cantrall cannot then state a claim of fraud based on Hartford’s failure to disclose
those same rates.
Finally, Cantrall argues that equitable estoppel exempts her from complying
with the applicable statute of limitations. Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel,
Cantrall would have been able to sue after the limitations period by showing that
“the defendant’s conduct, relied on by the plaintiff, [] induced the plaintiff to
3

-- 3 of 4 --

postpone filing the action until after the statute [had] run.” Mills v. Forestex Co.,
134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 273, 295 (Ct. App. 2003). The district court did not err in
denying Cantrall’s equitable estoppel claim because Cantrall admits that she was
not aware of her claim until March 2012, well after the statute of limitations period
had run. Cantrall does not show that the Hartford defendants undertook any action
to delay her filing of the cause of action.
We, therefore, affirm the decision of the district court. All outstanding
motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --