RulesofCivilProcedure.com Civil Procedure · Every State

§ 340.9.Insurance Claim For Damages Arising Out of Northridge Earthquake of 1994

Title 2. Of the Time of Commencing Civil Actions · Chapter 3. The Time of Commencing Actions Other Than for the Recovery of Real Property · Enacted 1899 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 28, 2026

In one sentenceSection 340.9 revived, for one year after its effective date, an otherwise time-barred insurance claim for Northridge earthquake damage, but only if the insured had contacted the insurer about potential earthquake damage before January 1, 2000, and the claim had not already been litigated to finality or settled in writing with a represented, signing insured.

Full Text of § 340.9

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or contract, any insurance claim for damages arising out of the Northridge earthquake of 1994 which is barred as of the effective date of this section solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired is hereby revived and a cause of action thereon may be commenced provided that the action is commenced within one year of the effective date of this section. This subdivision shall only apply to cases in which an insured contacted an insurer or an insurer's representative prior to January 1, 2000, regarding potential Northridge earthquake damage.
(b) Any action pursuant to this section commenced prior to, or within one year from, the effective date of this section shall not be barred based upon this limitations period.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the applicable limitations period of an action that is not time barred as of the effective date of this section.
(d) This section shall not apply to either of the following:
(1) Any claim that has been litigated to finality in any court of competent jurisdiction prior to the effective date of this section.
(2) Any written compromised settlement agreement which has been made between an insurer and its insured where the insured was represented by counsel admitted to the practice of law in California at the time of the settlement, and who signed the agreement.

Plain-English Summary

The January 1994 Northridge earthquake damaged tens of thousands of homes across the San Fernando Valley, and much of that damage did not show up right away. Cracked foundations, shifted framing, and hidden structural harm sometimes surfaced only after a policyholder’s ordinary window for suing an insurer had already closed. Section 340.9 addresses that gap with a narrow, one-time fix rather than a lasting change to how insurance disputes are timed.

The section revives claims that were otherwise barred solely because the statute of limitations had run, but only for insurance claims tied to Northridge earthquake damage, and only if the policyholder had already reached out to the insurer or the insurer’s representative about potential earthquake damage before January 1, 2000. That contact requirement keeps the revival window from becoming an opening for brand-new claims invented after the fact; it is meant for people who raised the issue with their carrier at the time but never got to court before the deadline passed. Once revived, a claim had to be filed within one year of the section’s effective date.

The revival does not reach every old claim. It excludes any claim already litigated to finality in court, and it excludes any claim resolved through a signed written settlement where the insured was represented by California counsel who signed off on the agreement. Subdivision (c) also makes clear the section leaves untouched any claim that was not yet time-barred when the section took effect; it rescues expired claims rather than lengthening deadlines that hadn’t run out.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Section 340.9 and why does it single out the Northridge earthquake?

It is a one-time revival statute passed after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, letting policyholders bring an insurance claim for earthquake damage that would otherwise be time-barred, so long as they had already flagged the damage to their insurer before 2000.

Can I still use Section 340.9 today to revive an old Northridge earthquake insurance claim?

No. The revival window ran for only one year after the section took effect in 2001, so that filing period closed long ago; it applied to a specific historical group of claims rather than an ongoing option.

Does Section 340.9 revive a claim I already settled with my insurer?

No. It excludes any claim resolved through a signed written settlement where the insured had a lawyer admitted to practice in California who signed the agreement.

Did Section 340.9 shorten or lengthen deadlines for earthquake claims that hadn’t expired yet?

No. Subdivision (c) makes clear the section only revives claims that were already time-barred; it does not change the limitations period for a claim that was still timely when the section took effect.

Amendment History

Added by Stats 2000 ch 1090 (SB 1899), s 1, eff. 1/1/2001.

Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature. Last verified July 28, 2026. · Official source
Also known as: northridge earthquake insurance claim revivalearthquake insurance statute of limitations california1994 northridge earthquake lawsuit deadline