Does the certificate of merit requirement apply to the statute of limitations set forth in section 340.1?

There is nothing in this case that makes it unusual. Doe asserts he reasonably relied on Doe v. Doe 1 in concluding the certificate of merit requirement did not apply. In Doe v. Doe 1, the appellate court concluded that Insurance Code section 11583 could toll the statute of limitations set forth in section 340.1. In that case, the plaintiff sued church entities in 2010, alleging that his local parish priest sexually molested him in 1987 and 1988. (Doe v. Doe 1, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 1187, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 215.) Plaintiff alleged that the statute of limitations was tolled under Insurance Code section 11583 because in 1988, one of the defendants and its insurance carrier paid for one therapy session to address the sexual abuse he had suffered. (Doe v. Doe 1, at p. 1188, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 215.) The trial court dismissed the complaint after sustaining the church entities' demurrers because the statute of limitations had expired. (Id. at p. 1187, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 215.) The appellate court reversed, holding the statute of limitations had been tolled because plaintiff did not receive notice of when the statute of limitations would run as required by Insurance Code section 11583. (Doe v. Doe 1, at p. 1187, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 215.)

Doe v. Doe 1 held that Insurance Code section 11583 tolling applied to section 340.1 ; it did not address the certificate of merit requirement. It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered. (

[190 Cal.Rptr.3d 762]