In 2005, the California Courts of Appeal rendered conflicting decisions on whether Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(c) applied to the six-month deadline to present a personal injury claim to a public entity. Section 340.1(c), passed in 2002, "revived" for the calendar year of 2003 any causes of action for childhood molestation against non-molesters (those who failed to prevent the molestation) that would otherwise have been barred solely by the statute of limitations for molestation cases. The Second District Court of Appeal decided that section 340.1(c) only applied to statutes of limitations -- i.e., limitation periods for filing lawsuits -- and that the six-month period for presenting a claim was not a statute of limitation. Thus, the time to present a claim ran from the date of the last act of molestation. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1269.) In the Shirk case, however, The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, however, ruled that section 340.1(c) governed the date the cause of action accrued; and since the time to present a claim runs from accrual, the court decided that section 340.1(c) did extend the time to present a claim.
To resolve the conflict, the California Supreme Court accepted review of the Shirk case; and in its opinion, published today, it agreed with the Second District. It ruled that section 340.1(c) only applies to "statutes of limitations"; and since the time to present a claim isn't a statute of limitations, section 340.1(c) did not apply to it.