Plichcik v. Safeco Insurance

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUSAN CAROL PLICHCIK, No. 24-1356 D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05137-JD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* SAFECO INSURANCE; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS; GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Susan Carol Plichcik appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). insurance coverage dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Plichcik failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she brought this action within the one-year limitations period set forth in her insurance policy or was entitled to tolling or otherwise excused from the limitations period. See Prudential-LMI Com. Ins. v. Superior Ct., 798 P.2d 1230, 1239 (Cal. 1990), as modified (Dec. 13, 1990) (explaining that the limitations period begins running when the insurer issues a “formal denial” of coverage); see also Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 551 P.3d 1097, 1103-1104 (Cal. 2024) (explaining that claims “on the policy” are those “that in some manner seek a financial recovery attributable to a claimed loss that was coverable under a policy” and that such claims are subject to the policy’s limitations periods).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1356