California Car Accident Statute of Limitations: Deadlines for San Diego Claims

In most California car accident cases, you have two years from the date of injury to file a personal injury lawsuit. But that is not the deadline in every case. Claims involving a government agency can require action within six months. Property damage generally has a three-year deadline. Different rules can also apply when the injured person is a minor, the at-fault driver dies, or the crash involves an uninsured or hit-and-run driver.

These deadlines determine when a lawsuit or other required legal proceeding must be started. They are different from an insurance company’s internal claim deadlines. Negotiating with an insurance company generally does not stop the statute of limitations from running.

If you were seriously injured in a crash, identifying the correct deadline is one of the first things a San Diego car accident attorney should do.

The Two-Year Deadline for Personal Injury Claims

California’s general statute of limitations for personal injury claims is found in California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. It provides a two-year limitations period for an action based on injury or death caused by another person’s wrongful act or negligence.

For most car accident cases, that means an injured person must file a lawsuit within two years of the collision because the injury and the conduct causing it occur at the same time.

For example, if a collision occurred on March 1, 2026, and the person was injured that day, the ordinary two-year limitations period would generally expire two years later. The exact deadline should still be calculated carefully because exceptions, tolling rules, government claims, or other statutes may change the analysis.

The two-year deadline applies to lawsuits against negligent drivers and can also apply to other parties whose conduct contributed to a crash, such as a vehicle owner, employer, contractor, or business.

Property Damage Claims Have a Three-Year Deadline

California generally allows three years to bring an action for damage to personal property under Code of Civil Procedure § 338(c)(1).

In a car accident case, this can include damage to a vehicle and other personal property. The property-damage deadline can therefore be different from the two-year deadline governing a bodily injury claim arising from the same collision.

That distinction matters when someone initially believes the crash caused only vehicle damage but later decides to pursue an injury claim. The longer property-damage statute does not extend the deadline for filing the personal injury lawsuit.

Wrongful Death Claims Generally Have a Two-Year Deadline

When a person dies because of injuries caused by a motor vehicle collision, California’s two-year limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 also generally applies to the resulting wrongful death action. Our guide to fatal car accidents in San Diego explains the other issues families face after a deadly crash.

For a wrongful death claim, the limitations period ordinarily runs from the date of death rather than necessarily from the date of the collision. If the injured person survives for a period of time before dying, that distinction can become important.

Wrongful death claims also involve separate questions about who may bring the action and what damages may be recovered. We discuss those issues in our guide to the wrongful death statute of limitations in California and on our San Diego wrongful death attorney page.

Government Claims Can Require Action Within Six Months

Some of the shortest and most important deadlines arise when a public entity may be responsible for a crash.

Under California Government Code § 911.2, a claim relating to personal injury, death, or damage to personal property generally must be presented to the responsible government entity within six months after the cause of action accrues.

This requirement can apply when a collision involves:

• A City of San Diego or other municipal vehicle
• A county or state-owned vehicle
• Caltrans
• A dangerous roadway, intersection, traffic signal, or other public property
• Another public agency or public employee whose conduct contributed to the collision

For example, a crash caused partly by defective traffic signal timing, an unsafe intersection design, or another dangerous roadway condition may involve a government claim even when another driver also appears to be at fault.

Presenting the government claim is only the first deadline. If the public entity gives proper written notice rejecting the claim under Government Code § 913, Government Code § 945.6 generally requires the lawsuit to be filed within six months after the rejection notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail.

If the entity does not provide the written notice required by § 913, § 945.6 provides a different limitations period, generally two years from accrual. Because the form and timing of the rejection can change the deadline, the rejection notice itself should be reviewed before calculating the filing date.

What If the Six-Month Government Claim Deadline Was Missed?

Missing the initial six-month deadline does not necessarily mean that relief is impossible, but the rules become much more difficult.

Government Code § 911.4 allows a person in certain circumstances to apply to the public entity for permission to present a late claim. The application must generally be made within a reasonable time that does not exceed one year after accrual.

That one-year period is not an automatic extension of the six-month claim deadline. The claimant must satisfy the requirements for late-claim relief. If the public entity denies the application, court relief may be available under Government Code § 946.6, which imposes additional deadlines and requirements.

Because potential public-entity liability is not always obvious immediately after a collision, serious crashes should be investigated early enough to identify possible roadway or government involvement before the six-month period expires.

Special Rules Apply to Injured Minors

California generally pauses certain statutes of limitations while an injured person is under 18. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 352(a), when a person is a minor at the time a qualifying cause of action accrues, the period of minority is generally excluded from the limitations calculation.

For an ordinary negligence claim arising from a car accident, this often means that the two-year statute does not begin running until the child turns 18.

But there is an important government-claim exception. Section 352(b) expressly provides that this ordinary tolling rule does not apply to an action against a public entity or public employee when California’s government claim presentation requirements apply.

A child injured because of a dangerous public roadway or government vehicle should therefore not assume that the claim can wait until adulthood. Government Code provisions governing late claims contain separate rules relating to minors.

Legal Incapacity Can Affect the Deadline

Code of Civil Procedure § 352(a) also addresses a person who lacked the legal capacity to make decisions when the cause of action accrued. In qualifying cases, the period of that disability is excluded when calculating the limitations period.

This issue can arise after catastrophic crashes involving severe brain injuries or other injuries that leave a person unable to make legal decisions.

As with minors, however, the ordinary tolling provision does not apply in the same manner to claims subject to California’s government claim requirements.

A Different Deadline Can Apply If the At-Fault Driver Dies

A less obvious statute can dramatically shorten the time available to sue if the person responsible for the collision dies after the accident.

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 366.2, if a person against whom a surviving claim could be brought dies before the otherwise applicable limitations period expires, an action generally must be commenced within one year after that person’s death.

This can create a deadline earlier than the normal two-year personal injury statute. The statute also sharply limits the circumstances in which that one-year period can be tolled or extended.

For that reason, learning that the at-fault driver died after a collision should trigger an immediate review of the filing deadline and any probate-related requirements.

Uninsured and Hit-and-Run Claims Have Separate Requirements

Claims involving an uninsured driver, an underinsured driver, or an unidentified hit-and-run driver can involve additional statutory requirements under California Insurance Code § 11580.2.

For uninsured motorist claims, § 11580.2(i) generally requires one of several specified actions within two years after the accident, such as filing suit against the uninsured motorist, reaching an agreement with the insurer, or formally instituting arbitration in the manner required by the statute.

Hit-and-run claims can have even faster notice requirements. When the owner or operator is unknown, § 11580.2 includes requirements involving physical contact, reporting the accident to law enforcement within 24 hours, and providing a sworn statement to the insurer within the statutory period.

Underinsured motorist claims add another complication because coverage generally does not apply until the available bodily injury liability limits have been exhausted as required by § 11580.2(p).

These insurance requirements are separate from the statute governing a lawsuit against the person who caused the collision. A person should therefore not assume that simply opening an uninsured or underinsured motorist claim preserves every available right.

Do Delayed Symptoms Extend the Statute of Limitations?

Usually not by themselves.

Some collision injuries become more obvious over time. A person may develop worsening neck or back symptoms, receive a later diagnosis of a disc injury, or gradually recognize cognitive, emotional, or sleep problems associated with a traumatic brain injury.

But discovering the full diagnosis or severity of an injury after a known car accident does not ordinarily create a new two-year limitations period.

California’s discovery rule can delay accrual in some circumstances until the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should discover, the facts giving rise to the claim. The California Supreme Court has explained that the limitations period generally begins when a person knows or has reason to suspect an injury was caused by wrongdoing. A plaintiff ordinarily does not get additional time simply because the precise diagnosis, full extent of damages, identity of every defendant, or legal significance of the known facts becomes clear later.

For most ordinary car crashes, the collision itself gives the injured person immediate knowledge of the event and its potential cause. Anyone considering reliance on the discovery rule should therefore obtain legal advice rather than assume that delayed symptoms postponed the filing deadline.

Insurance Negotiations Usually Do Not Stop the Clock

One of the most dangerous misconceptions about the statute of limitations is that an active insurance claim protects the right to sue.

It generally does not.

An adjuster may continue requesting medical records, evaluating damages, discussing settlement, or making offers while the statute of limitations continues to run. Unless a valid agreement, statute, or recognized legal doctrine changes the deadline, the plaintiff must still file the lawsuit on time.

California recognizes equitable doctrines such as estoppel in appropriate circumstances when a defendant’s conduct actually induces a claimant to delay filing. But equitable estoppel is highly fact-specific and should not be treated as a substitute for complying with the applicable statute of limitations.

The safer approach is to identify the controlling deadline early and file suit before it expires if the claim has not been resolved. Our guide to the legal process for a car accident lawsuit explains what filing involves.

What Happens If the Statute of Limitations Expires?

If a lawsuit is filed after the applicable limitations period has expired, the defendant can usually raise the statute of limitations as a defense and seek dismissal of the claim.

That can mean losing the right to recover compensation even when the other party was clearly responsible for the collision and the injuries are severe.

Potential exceptions and tolling doctrines should be investigated when a deadline may have passed, but they are often narrow and fact-dependent. It is far better to determine the correct deadline before it becomes an issue.

Why You Should Not Wait Until the Deadline

The statute of limitations is the outside filing deadline, not a recommended timetable for investigating a serious car accident case.

Important evidence can disappear long before two years pass. Vehicles may be repaired or destroyed. Surveillance video can be overwritten. Witnesses can become difficult to locate. Electronic vehicle data may be lost. Road conditions can change. Government records and commercial records may need to be requested before they are routinely deleted.

Early investigation is particularly important in serious injury cases where liability is disputed, multiple defendants may be responsible, or a government entity could share responsibility for the collision.

If you were recently involved in a crash, our guide to what to do after a car accident in San Diego explains additional steps that can help preserve evidence and protect your claim.

How Hulburt Law Firm Can Help

Determining the statute of limitations is more than counting two years from the date of a crash. The correct deadline can depend on the type of claim, the identity of the defendants, whether a government entity is involved, the age or capacity of the injured person, insurance coverage, and events occurring after the collision.

At Hulburt Law Firm, we handle serious injury and wrongful death cases throughout San Diego County. We investigate potential claims early, identify all potentially responsible parties, preserve evidence, and calculate the deadlines that apply to each claim.

If you or a family member has been seriously injured in a collision and have questions about the time remaining to bring a claim, contact Hulburt Law Firm for a free case review.