Skip to content
  • Latest
2024 Success Stories
  • Call Today: 310.444.9060
  • Probate Services
    ▼
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    ▼
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    ▼
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    ▼
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation
  • Probate Services
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation
  • Probate Services
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation

Home » Blog » A Shortcut Procedure for Suing a Decedent Without Involving the Probate Court

Last Updated: March 13, 2024

A Shortcut Procedure for Suing a Decedent Without Involving the Probate Court

Search

In most instances, if a party wants to recover damages against a person who has passed away, a personal representative must be appointed on behalf of the estate so that the party can bring their suit. In fact, in a two-part blog post, Keystone outlined the steps a person must follow to litigate by or against a decedent’s estate. But Probate Code sections 550-555 (“Sections 550-555”) carve out an exception to the rule for bringing an action against a decedent who was covered by insurance, whereby a suit can be brought against the decedent’s estate without involving the Probate Court at all, albeit with some added limitations. These Probate Code sections may prove especially helpful to those attorneys whose practice focuses on personal injury, and who often deal with insurance companies.

Under Sections 550-555, an action to establish a decedent’s liability for which the decedent was protected by insurance may be commenced or continued against the decedent’s estate without the need to join the decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest. Thus, this applies both to actions pending at the death of the decedent as well as to actions commenced after the decedent’s death. Court approval is not required to bring a suit under Sections 550-555, and the Estate does not have to be under the threshold value for initiating probate under Probate Code section 13100.[i]

While at first glance these code sections may seem too good to be true, there are some very specific limitations in place that shape the context of bringing an action under Sections 550-555, as follows:

The primary limitation of note relates to damages. Damages sought under Sections 550-555 must be within the limits of the coverage of the insurance in place on the decedent. Further, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the action is enforceable only up to the insurance coverage amount, and not against any other property in the decedent’s estate.[ii] So for example, if you are bringing a suit under Sections 550-555 and the decedent’s insurance policy is for $300,000, the case goes to trial and a judgment of $350,000 is obtained, you would get $300,000 from the insurance company, but that’s all. You cannot get the difference from the estate of the decedent, even though the judgment was higher. Damages are not limited, however, if the personal representative is joined as a party to the action and if the plaintiff files a claim in compliance with Probate Code section 9390.[iii]

It is also important to note several specific procedural requirements applicable to such an action. Regarding the time to file – Probate Code section 551 provides, notwithstanding Section 366.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which provides that all claims against a decedent must be brought within one year of the decedent’s death, or are time barred), if the limitations period otherwise applicable to the action has not expired at the time of the decedent’s death, an action under Sections 550-555 may be commenced within one year after the expiration of the limitations period otherwise applicable to that cause of action. Additionally, the action must name the defendant, “Estate of (Name of decedent), Deceased”; the Summons for the action must be served on a person designated in writing by the insurer or, if none, on the insurer itself; and the proceedings are in the name of the estate, but are otherwise conducted in the same manner as if the action were against the personal representative.[iv] However, on motion of an interested person, or on its own motion, the court may, for good cause, order the appointment and substitution of a personal representative as the defendant[v] or consolidate the action with another pending action against the personal representative.[vi] These options for bringing in the personal representative of the estate could prove important, depending on the coverage limits of the insurance policy, the value of the estate, and/or the damages sought.

An example of such an action can be found in Meleski v. Estate of Hotlen – a case that discusses an exception to the general rule that a plaintiff’s overall recovery is limited to the amount of the decedent’s insurance coverage.[vii] In Meleski, plaintiff Amanda Meleski (“Amanda”) was injured in a car accident by Albert Hotlen (“Hotlen” or “Decedent”). When Amanda brought suit against Hotlen for her injuries, she discovered that he had since passed away, and his estate had no assets from which she could recover. Hotlen did, however, have a $100,000 insurance policy from Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) which covered this accident. Amanda brought her action under Sections 550-555, which allowed her to serve her complaint on Allstate but limited her recovery of damages to the policy limits.[viii] At trial, Amanda was awarded a jury verdict of $180,613.86. There was no dispute that Allstate was obligated to pay $100,000 toward the judgment, but a dispute arose as to whether Allstate was obligated to pay some of Amanda’s litigation expenses in addition to the $100,000 policy coverage.

Before trial, Amanda made a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“Section 998”)[ix] to Allstate for $99,999. Allstate rejected the offer and countered with $40,000. At trial, Amanda received a more favorable result as she obtained a jury verdict of $180,613.86. The Court in Meleski found that Allstate was responsible for the $100,000 policy coverage plus Amanda’s post 998 offer costs, even though those costs brought the total amount recovered by Amanda in excess of the policy limits.[x] The reasoning behind this ruling was that the purpose of Section 998 is to encourage fair settlements, and here, Allstate rejected a fair settlement offer as a litigation tactic; as such, Allstate itself is responsible for the consequences of its own litigation strategy, and therefore is responsible for the costs associated with its rejection of a Section 998 offer, separate and apart from any coverage limits which may have been in place on the decedent.[xi]

Thus, as seen from this case example, Sections 550-555 provide a unique and helpful tool that attorneys can utilize to assist clients in obtaining favorable results against a decedent’s estate, in an efficient manner and without the expense associated with the formal appointment of a personal representative over the decedent’s estate. And in some instances, a person may be able to recover more than the policy limit.

————————

[i] Probate Code section 13100 provides a streamlined out-of-court procedure for the post death transfer of a decedent’s assets which would normally be subject to a probate proceeding, but only applies when the gross value of the decedent’s estate does not exceed $150,000.
[ii] Prob. C. § 554.
[iii] Id.
[iv] Prob. C. § 552.
[v] Prob. C. § 552(b).
[vi] Prob. C. § 552(c).
[vii] (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 616.
[viii] Id. at 621.
[ix] Section 998 provides that prior to commencement of trial, any party may serve an offer in writing upon any other party to the action, and if that offer is not accepted within 30 day of being made, it is deemed withdrawn, and if the party that rejected the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment at trial then the court may require that non-settling party to pay all post-offer costs (and in some instances fees) of the opposing party.
[x] Id. at 628.
[xi] Id.

Share Post
PrevPreviousAdmit it! The Substantial Implications of Denying Requests for Admission
Read NextKeystone Sponsors LACBA ReceptionNext

Related Articles

Businessperson analyzing document at desk. Close-up of a professional auditor or lawyer reviewing a lengthy paper report in office setting
Can Creditors Go After a Trust Without a Probate Proceeding?
Read More
shutterstock_2304763731-cropped
2024 Success Stories
Read More
Signing contract and buying agricultural machines and farming equipment
Restoring Ownership of Home — and Justice — for Financially Exploited Elder
Read More
Close up of hands using phone
Shutting Down a Scandal: Protecting a Son’s Legacy From Influencer’s Social Media Attacks 
Read More
talking with trustee
Keeping the Peace in Decades-Old Family Feud
Read More
senior caucasian man open mail letter sign contract document at home
Securing Multimillion-Dollar Settlement for Nephew of Hollywood Icon Without Litigation
Read More
Angry neighbours having argument near fence outdoors
Using a Summary Judgment Motion to Shut Down a Baseless Trust Dispute
Read More
Contract, signature and attorney consulting a client in his office with legal paperwork or agreement
Safeguarding Daughter’s Inheritance From Trust Mismanagement
Read More
Contesting a Life Insurance Beneficiary: Rules to Know
Read More
Subscribe to The Keystone Quarterly  

Stay up to date with the latest news in the exciting world of probate law through our quarterly newsletter, The Keystone Quarterly. 

Each issue provides insight into the latest probate developments, delves into some of Keystone’s more interesting cases, and gives important updates about our firm. The Keystone Quarterly is a must-read for attorneys and clients alike.

Linkedin Instagram Facebook
Contact
  • 11300 West Olympic Blvd.
    Suite 910
    Los Angeles, CA 90064
  • 310.444.9060
Contact Us
Linkedin Instagram Facebook
Company
  • Our Firm
  • Attorneys
  • Staff
  • Careers
  • 10th Anniversary
Probate Services
  • Trust & Will Disputes
  • Fiduciary Misconduct
  • Property Disputes
  • Elder Financial Abuse
  • Trust & Estate Administration
  • Conservatorship
  • Guardianship
  • Probate Appeals
Who We Help
  • Executor / Administrator
  • Trustee
  • Beneficiary
  • Spouse
  • Power of Attorney
  • Conservator
  • Guardian
  • Creditor
Learn
  • Blog
  • Case Studies
  • Newsletters
  • Testimonials
  • Whitepapers
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Sitemap
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Sitemap

©2025 Keystone Law Group, P.C. All rights reserved.

This website is for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Connection to this website, and communication to this law firm via email or other electronic transmission do not constitute an attorney-client relationship with Keystone Law Group, P.C. unless a separate written agreement is signed by you and Keystone Law Group, P.C. as to the nature of any relationship and the amount to be charged for the intended legal services.

Manage Cookie Consent
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}