Our Los Angeles business and real estate attorneys are constantly evaluating cases and claims to determine whether the Firm is going to take on another good fight. Part of the process is to evaluate the merits of a claim to determine whether liability exists. Another element of case evaluation is to determine whether damages exist. A case can have all the liability in the world but without damages, there is no cause of action in California. Another important factor in evaluating damages is to determine whether any statutes of limitations (the period of time to file a timely lawsuit) have run their course.
The situation often arises when there may be liability but damages have not accrued. In such a case, California law mandates the accrual of damages before a claim or cause of action is legally ripe for filing. See C.C.P. § 312. Under California law, a cause of action does not accrue until the damages have been sustained. See City of Vista supra 84 Cal. App. 4th at 886 (“When damages are an element of a cause of action, the cause of action does not accrue until the damages have been sustained.”) (Emphasis added); see also McAllister v. Clement, (1988) 75 Cal. 182, 184 (“But it is clear that no action will lie to recover damages if no damages have been sustained.”); see also Allen v. Gardner, (1954) 126 Cal. App. 2d 335, 340; see also Vaca v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 737, 743 (“[I]t is often stated that the statute commences ‘upon the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action.’”) (Internal citations omitted.); see also Pooshs v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 788, 797 (“A cause of action accrues ‘when [it] is complete with all of its elements’—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.”) (Emphasis added) (Internal citations omitted.)
Moreover, the threat of future harm, not yet realized, is not enough to trigger the running of a statute of limitation. See United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc., (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 586, 597 (“Mere threat of future harm, not yet realized, is not enough…The cause of action must be matured so that a suit can be based upon it…No action will lie to recover damages if no damages have been sustained…Basic public policy is best served by recognizing that damage is necessary to mature such a cause of action.”) (Emphasis added.) (Internal citations omitted.); see also Walker v. Pacific Indem. Co., (1960) 183 Cal. App. 2d 513, 517 (“It is clear that mere possibility, or even probability, that an event causing damage will result from a wrongful act does not render the act actionable…”); see also McAllister supra 75 Cal. at 814.