Is a waiver of the statute of limitations valid in a "tolling agreement" between the parties?

Defendant asserts that the Code of Civil Procedure section 360.5¹ renewal requirement applies to the "tolling agreement" between the parties, and therefore plaintiff's claim is untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. ( 337.) The apparent purpose of section 360.5 was to prevent creditors from extracting perpetual waivers of the statute of limitations and thereby emasculating the defense of the statute of limitations. (See California First Bank v. Braden (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 672, 677, 264 Cal.Rptr. 820.) Moreover, such agreements would be contrary to the public interest in preventing stale claims. (See

[147 Cal.Rptr.3d 599]

Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 317, 146 Cal.Rptr. 224, 578 P.2d 941.) The same policy principles apply to agreements whether labeled as waivers of, or as tolling of, the statute of limitations.