5 Situations Where the Statute of Limitations Is “Tolled” in California

Time is a critical factor in civil litigation, where the stakes can be high. The statute of limitations (SOL) sets a firm deadline to ensure your claims within the law are submitted in time, when the evidence is still fresh. Missing this date means you forego your day in court, regardless of whether your case is a good one.

However, California law recognizes that certain circumstances may prevent you from filing a lawsuit on time. The doctrine of tolling is a crucial principle used by courts to avoid grave injustice. A tolling is a judicial pause button: it pauses the statute of limitations, halting the countdown until the exceptional circumstance ends. Tolling protects you in situations where you cannot pursue a claim, like incapacity, the defendant’s absence, or hidden injuries. These legal exceptions play an essential role in ensuring fairness.

The following information addresses five practical situations under California law in which the SOL clock may be paused to protect valid claims.

Situation 1: Under 18 (The Case of Minors)

One of the most foundational applications of the tolling doctrine occurs when the injured party, you, is a minor. California law recognizes that individuals under 18 lack the legal capacity to hire an attorney and pursue litigation. Consequently, the state protects the rights of children.

In most civil proceedings, including personal injury claims, for example, car accidents, premises liability, property damage, or breach of contract, Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 352(a) offers you a simple, general rule: the statute of limitations does not begin until the minor’s 18th birthday.

For example, you had a slip-and-fall accident, which happened when you were 12 years old. In the case where the SOL is two years, applicable in this case, the legal clock would not begin to run on the date of your injury. Instead, it would be frozen until your 18th birthday. Then, after two years, the two-year SOL clock would finally start, and you would have until your 20th birthday to file the lawsuit. The idea is that you should have a reasonable opportunity to seek justice as a full-fledged adult.

The rule is that until the age of 18 is a liberal standard, but there is one crucial and complicated exemption to this rule, namely, medical malpractice. Since medical claims commonly possess the complex scientific evidence that fails with time, the state legislature established rigid restrictions on tolling in these circumstances, which are located in CCP Section 340.5:

• For children under six — The statute of limitations is tolled for children under the age of six. However, an absolute limit of the eighth birthday (or the standard three-year period of time) of the time of injury, whichever period is earlier, is applicable. This drastically reduces the time required, compared to the general rule.
• For children six and older — In case of malpractice when you are six years old and above or one year since you learned about the injury, the recall period is merely three years since the injury or one year since you found out about the injury. The special tolling provisions for individuals aged 18 years or older are effectively removed.

This exception must be addressed promptly by a guardian or representative, who should file a claim well before the individual reaches the age of majority.

Ultimately, the ticking clock can be triggered early in case you are legally emancipated. Emancipation refers to the act through which a minor can be granted the status of an adult according to the law before the age of 18. Upon having the emancipation granted to you formally by a court, you are relieved of your legal disabilities and are considered fit to conduct your own business, including litigation. Consequently, at the date of emancipation, the tolling provision ceases, and the applicable statute of limitations on any claims that may exist commences to run instantly.

Situation 2: Mental Incapacity (Legal Insanity)

The second major tolling situation applies when you are mentally or physically incapable of filing a claim. Similarly to minor persons, adult persons who cannot take care of their personal or economic life are incapable of initiating a lawsuit, and the law understands that it would be unfair to convict these persons of this incapacity.

The statute states that a person is insane; this is a legal word, not a medical term. The court does not pose the question of whether you can qualify as having a severe psychiatric condition, like psychosis. Instead, the test focuses on functional ability as posed by the legal test of CCP Section 352(a): Are you incapable of taking care of your property or doing business, or of knowing the nature or consequences of your acts?

This definition is broad and covers more than mental health conditions. Examples of these situations include:

• Coma, persistent vegetative state — A state of physical incapability that makes you completely unresponsive.
• Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) — This is an injury that causes a decline in your level of cognitive ability to the extent that you are unable to follow the legal proceedings.
• Severe psychiatric hospitalization — This is an acute mental hospitalization that involves court-ordered or protracted hospitalization, and you are not able to make sound decisions.

Under either of these conditions, the clock of the statute of limitations is suspended until the incapacity is removed and you are considered recovered to reason and capacity.

This tolling applies only if the incapacity existed when the cause of action first arose. The physical and mental inability should be in place at the accrual of the cause of action, that is, the moment the injury or wrong was first incurred.

Suppose you are injured in a car accident and are perfectly capable of filing a lawsuit for the first six months. However, suffering a severe stroke and becoming incapacitated is a general case in which this particular tolling provision will not benefit you. The law assumes that since you had a window of opportunity to file, the statute of limitations should have run. Tolling is meant to safeguard individuals who never had a chance to claim their rights in the first place, as they were disabled.

Although there is no limit to the SOL in case of incapacity suspension, there are particular lengthier, more specific statutes of limitation in which there is an absolute time limit, or cap, that can be enforced no matter how your mind has changed. An example is that in some real estate or property conflicts, the SOL can be capped at 20 years. The claim would lapse after 20 years, even if you had been in the same incapacitated state for over 30 years. These long-term caps serve as a backup to ensure that property claims, which are already stale, do not linger forever, especially when property ownership and loss of evidence are at stake. It is always advisable to look at the statute that applies to your kind of claim to find out whether there is an absolute limit.

Situation 3: The Defendant Is Out of the State

The third crucial tolling scenario is that of a strategic move by the party against whom you are taking suit (the defendant) or a mere relocation. In the past, a defendant who had gone out of California could not easily be served with legal documents, so you could not even sue him/her. The state passed a specific rule of tolling to prevent defendants from evading liability through their evasiveness.

According to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 351, when a defendant leaves the state after your claim accrues, the time that the defendant is away is excluded from the time that is allowed to initiate the proceedings. The clock stops every single day that they are out of California, irrespective of the reasons for their absence (whether it is a permanent relocation, a business trip, or a weekend holiday).

This tolling clause effectively adds to your deadline the very length of the defendant's absence.

Suppose that you have been hurt and your statute of limitations (SOL) is two years. The defendant relocated to Nevada six months after the injury and remained there for one year before returning:

• The initial period of the clock is 6 months
• It then halts for the 12 months that the defendant is in Nevada
• The clock is reset upon the return of the defendant
• Your new deadline will be 2 years and 6 months since the date of the injury (the initial 2 years with the 12 months of tolling)

Although CCP 351 appears absolute in nature, it has been undermined over time by the purpose with which it was created, which was to make sure that you do not serve a defendant, by the modern-day long-arm statutes, and the efficient delivery of out-of-state services. Consequently, the courts have imposed a constitutional restriction based on the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Tolling of Section 351 is usually found to be unconstitutional. It does not apply in cases where the defendant's absence is related to interstate commerce and when the defendant can be served outside of California.

An example of these exceptions is that of:

• Businesses — These are corporations or companies (such as a trucking company) that can always have an agent within or outside of the state that can be served.
• Individuals in interstate commerce — When the defendant is a person who conducts any type of significant, ongoing business across state jurisdictions, compelling him/her to stay in California to maintain the SOL defense is considered an undue burden to commerce.

Simply put, in case you still had a way of serving the defendant with court papers when he/she is out of state (which is true in most current cases), the justification of the tolling provision does not exist, and the court can decide that the SOL clock was not stopped. This renders the physical absence rule significantly less reliable than initially expected.

Situation 4: The Delayed Discovery Rule (Latent Injuries and Fraud)

The fourth and in many ways the most critical tolling doctrine in California is the delayed discovery rule. This rule is designed for cases where the injury or the fact of its wrongful causation is reprehensible, in concealment, or inherently difficult for you to detect immediately. In the absence of this rule, the statute of limitations would often expire before you even became aware that you had a claim, creating an injustice of immense proportions.

The basic principle of the delayed discovery rule is the opposite of the initial point of the SOL. The clock is usually set off on the date of occurrence, which is the date when the wrongful act or injury was committed. However, with this rule, the clock is held until the date of accrual.

Your cause of action will accrue when you:

• Suffer an actual injury or harm
• Know of, or have reason to suspect, that someone else's wrongful conduct caused the injury.

The law does not ask you to learn who the defendant was, what the legal theory of the case is (such as “negligence” or “breach of fiduciary duty”), or what the full scope of your damages is. The suspicion of evil and a malicious cause is sufficient.

This rule will protect you, but you cannot be willfully blind. The standard on the objective side that the courts impose is reasonable diligence. This means that if you have facts or information that would make a sane person in your circumstances suspect that something is wrong, the clock begins as soon as this information or these facts are known to you. Even if you personally failed to make the connection.

The question a court will ask is, "Should you have known?"

• Example 1 (willful blindness) — In a case where you have bought a building, and you are aware of a significant, apparent, and progressive water leak as soon as it rains, then the clock running on the claim of a construction defect begins at such a point. You cannot wait five years and then claim that you discovered it late, since the defect was apparent and should have put you on notice.
• Example 2 (diligence rewarded) — You may be acting in reasonable diligence. However, you experience some vague symptoms, like chronic fatigue or occasional pains, and your doctor keeps reassuring you that it is everyday stress. The SOL clock begins to run starting on the date of its discovery, in case you subsequently, after additional tests, find out that these symptoms were the result of a toxic mold that was behind a wall.

Most commonly, the rule applies to complex litigation when the injury or the perpetrator is, in the first instance, hidden:

• Latent construction defects — In real estate, these damages are often concealed behind walls, foundations, or underground piping, for example, faulty waterproofing or unstable soil. The three-year SOL on property damage does not start when the building was developed. Instead, it begins when you notice the defect.
• Financial fraud and professional malpractice — This applies in the fraud cases (Code of Civil Procedure 338(d)) where the limitation period of three years does not start until the time at which you learn the facts that lead to the fraud or error. When a financial advisor has hidden illegal trades or falsified the value of an investment, the clock starts ticking until such a truth is reasonably discovered.
• Toxic torts (environmental or product exposure) — For injuries associated with long-term exposure to dangerous substances, for example, asbestos or chemical pollution, the injury might not be noticed until decades later. The SOL is usually initiated when a medical diagnosis is made that the unjustified exposure caused the disease, for example, mesothelioma. It is a typical use of the rule, as it is crucial to allow long-latency disease victims their day in court.

The delayed discovery rule is a lifeline in these cases and helps to reverse the attention from the date that the wrong occurred to the date when you were first in a position to bring a claim with adequate information.

Situation 5: Equitable Tolling and Fraudulent Concealment

The fifth type of tolling is based not upon particular statutes, but upon the natural capacity of the courts to promote fairness and to make sure that the defendant would not take advantage of his misdeeds. This is referred to as either equitable tolling or, in the instance of deceit, equitable estoppel.

Fraudulent Concealment (Equitable Estoppel)

Any defendant seeking to invoke the statute of limitations as a shield will not be allowed to invoke it if they had acted to make sure that you were not able to discover your claim. This is the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

If the defendant:

• Acted in bad faith, or misrepresented or concealed vital information
• Intended to dissuade you from filing suit
• You justifiably depended on their lies; for example, they told you that they would pay damages in case you sued, or they went out of their way to conceal crucial evidence. The defendant would be barred (in law prohibited) from asserting the SOL defense. The time will run out until you find the fraud. This is a legal defense against bad faith that must occur as a necessary element in which the defendant has committed misconduct that has resulted in the delay of filing the same.

Equitable tolling also applies when you pursue another remedy in good faith before filing a civil claim.

Equitable tolling typically works in cases where you have sought the remedy in another law or administrative court that comes up as a result of the same facts as your civil suit.

Example: When you are hurt at work, there might be two possible solutions:

• A workers' compensation claim (administrative) and
• A personal injury action against a third party (civil court)

In case you properly file your workers' comp claim, the time spent on the same is usually charged against the corresponding personal injury claim. This is paramount since it will motivate you to secure the most expedient remedy first, without the fear that the SOL to the other claim will run out as you wait to get the other one.

Find a Personal Injury Attorney Near Me

The complexities of the Statute of Limitations (SOL), particularly when it's "tolled" or temporarily paused in California, are critical for any personal injury case. It is essential to be aware of the circumstances under which the clock stops, as this is crucial in safeguarding their rights. These exceptions may make the difference between a viable case and a closed door.

Do not make assumptions regarding your deadlines in the law. You should contact the San Diego Personal Injury Law Firm for a free consultation in the event of an injury and to discuss any potential tolling limitation period. We will evaluate your case and ensure you understand the applicable timelines. Contact us at 619-478-4059.