Appellant injured party sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed her action against respondents, church and insurer, for intentional and negligent spoilation of evidence on the grounds that the action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, as set forth in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339(1).
Appellant injured party was hurt when the van in which she was riding, which was owned by respondent church, rolled over. Appellant sought out help from attorneys and filed suit to recover for her injuries. After the accident, respondents, church and insurer, destroyed the van. Over two years after the van was destroyed, appellant filed an action for intentional or negligent spoilation of evidence, claiming that respondents’ destruction of the van interfered with her ability to prove her related tort claim. The trial court dismissed the action, finding that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code. § 339(1). Appellant sought review, arguing that the claim was timely because she filed suit within two years of the date on which she discovered that the van had been destroyed. The court affirmed, holding that the limitations period ran from the date the van was destroyed, and that the claim was thus untimely, because the action accrued when the van was destroyed and appellant failed to plead that specialized knowledge was required to detect the van’s destruction, that she had a special relationship with respondents, or that respondents fraudulently concealed the destruction.
The court affirmed the dismissal of appellant injured party’s action for intentional or negligent spoilation of evidence because appellant failed to file suit within two years of the date that respondents, church and insurer, destroyed the evidence and her claim was, thus, barred by the statute of limitations.
