Is the statute of limitations defense a "favored or disfavored" defense?

For years, California cases debated whether the defense of the statute of limitations was a favored or disfavored defense. In 1999, we resolved the matter: "[T]he affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations should not be characterized by courts as either `favored' or `disfavored.' The two public policies identified above the one for repose and the other for disposition on the merits are equally strong, the one being no less important or substantial than the other." (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 396, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453, 981 P.2d 79.) Thus, we approach the issue of the statute of limitations defense in this case with no policy predisposition favoring either side.