Skip to content

California’s Sweeping New Insurance Policy Limit Demand Statute Goes Into Effect January 2023

December 1, 2022

In California, time-limited insurance policy limit demands have become the proverbial sledgehammer in the litigation toolbox.  To set up insurance carriers for bad-faith claims, litigators have issued policy limit demand letters that often include minimal detail while seeking maximum recovery. An insurance carrier, tasked with the duty to act “reasonably” in response to such policy limit demand letters, faced difficult decisions that often left the insurance carrier with few options other than to reject the demand letter and face the consequences. The Legislature, at the behest of both the Plaintiff and Defense bar, has enacted crucial legislative changes taking effect on Jan. 1, 2023, pertaining to time-limited demands.

California Code of Civil Procedure sections 999-999.5 (Senate Bill 1155) sets forth statutory requirements for the use of time-limited demands within policy limits for settling civil claims covered under automobile, motor vehicle, homeowner, or commercial premises liability insurance policies for property damage, personal or bodily injury, and wrongful death claims. A time-limited demand is defined as “an offer prior to the filing of the complaint or demand for arbitration to settle any cause of action or a claim for personal injury, property damage, bodily injury, or wrongful death made by or on behalf of a claimant to a tortfeasor with a liability insurance policy for purposes of settling the claim against the tortfeasor within the insurer’s limit of liability insurance, which by its terms must be accepted within a specified period of time.” C.C.P 999 § (b)(2).

The statute imposes requirements on a claimant issuing a time-limited demand.  The demand must:

  • Be written,
  • Be labeled as a time-limited demand (or reference the statute),
  • Provide at least 30 days to accept if the demand is transmitted by email or 33 days to accept if transmitted by mail,
  • Include a clear and unequivocal offer to settle all claims within policy limits, including the satisfaction of all liens,
  • Offer for complete release from the claimant for the liability insurer’s insured from all present and future liability for the occurrence,
  • Provide the date of the loss, the location of the loss, and the claim number, if known,
  • Provide a description of all known injuries sustained by the claimant, and,
  • Provide reasonable proof of the claim and damages, which may include, if applicable, medical records or bills sufficient to support the claim.

Upon receiving a time-limited demand, the insurer is empowered to seek clarification, additional information, or request an extension due to the need for further information. Such a request “shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a counteroffer or rejection of the demand.” (Section 999.3(b)). In the event the insurer chooses to reject a time-limited demand, the claimant must be notified in writing prior to the expiration of the demand, and the writing must provide the basis for the insurer’s decision to reject the demand.

The enactment of Senate Bill 1155 will provide a more equitable playing field for both sides and ensure that cases worthy of early resolution receive such attention based on the facts and evidence.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Event

Clark Hill's Commercial Real Estate Symposium – Dallas, Texas

Join Clark Hill’s Commercial Real Estate attorneys and industry professionals for a timely and dynamic program in Dallas, focusing on the latest challenges and top trends in the CRE industry.

Explore more
Legal Updates

California Announces Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with GM Over Connected Vehicle Data

On May 8, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with several California district attorneys and the California Privacy Protection Agency, announced a $12.75 million settlement with General Motors and its connected vehicle service OnStar. The settlement resolves allegations that the companies violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law by collecting and selling connected vehicle data without adequate consumer notice or consent.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Long Saga of Colorado AI Act Appears to Have Come to Close With Revised Law

Ever since its initial passage into law in 2024, the Colorado AI Act has been a lightning rod for controversy and calls for change. Over the ensuing two years, multiple attempts to amend the law were floated and proposed by consumer and industry groups. The implementation of the law itself was delayed several times to allow for such changes, with Governor Jared Polis calling a special session of the legislature last August to specifically address potential changes. All of those attempts appear to have culminated in Senate Bill 189 having passed both the Colorado House (57-6) and Senate (34-1) this week. The bill next heads to the desk of Governor Jared Polis where it is expected to be signed into law and to take effect as of January of 2027.

Explore more