Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

For substantive questions such as this the client and the insurance company would have to decide. As to the relationship between the defendant and the insurance company, in med Mal cases the doctor defendant must consent for settlement. Insurance defense attorneys usually claim to go to the insurance company and or defendant for everything. In any event, the plaintiff cannot dictate who decides what

Defense attorneys who are hired by insurance companies to represent their insureds serve two masters. They serve the named defendants, but they are also controlled by an insurance adjuster. Most insurance carriers would never agree to toll the statute of limitations, and I have only seen it done once in a case in which there was no insurance.

It seems to me that if you have a case and the statute is getting ready to run on a tolling agreement, then you need to be concerned about filing the case, instead of focusing on what the reasons for their "no" was.

Your question is a bit more complicated than it may seem, because there is not only the issue of who controls what between the attorney and client, where there is an insurance company there are effectively two clients, each with certain rights and authority. Then there is the question of legal authority to make binding decisions, versus the ethical authority. The law almost universally holds that an attorney can bind the client(s) to procedural decisions even if they are acting without the authorization of their clients, but cannot make binding settlement decisions unless actually authorized. Because waiving a statute of limitations by extending a tolling agreement involves both substantive and procedural rights, I am not sure if an attorney could make a binding agreement to toll without client authorization, but I think they could. But then you get up against the ethical obligations of the attorney. If the attorney doesn't check with his client and agrees to toll, that may be really bad client relations but it is probably permitted under ethical rules, but if the client says "no," the attorney is ethically obligated to follow that instruction or they will likely be fired and might face discipline by the State Bar. Then there is the question of who controls the case when an insurance company is providing the defense, the insurance company or the insured. That is a VERY complex area of the law, but for purposes of your question, both the insured and the carrier probably have to agree to toll or the tolling cannot be extended.

THEIR authority chain is basically none of your business; it doesn't matter to you, as you have no say in it. FYI, the answer to your question is: Any and all of them can say 'no' to settlements. ALL of them must say yes to enter one.

Also FYI: I would not allow a client to stipulate to a tolling agreement. Why would I grant the other side [you] such a huge benefit of keeping alive a potential case that would 'die' without the agreement, unless such agreement gave something of equally huge benefit to my client. What are you offering them of comparable value?? I can't think of anything that would persuade me to do so. The other side owes you nothing, no sympathy, charity or 'fairness' . On the contrary, they would actually be derelict in their duty to their client if they conceded such a benefit to you.

It sounds like you are pro per, and in over your head. It also sounds like you are allowing them to stall you until it is to late for you. You should at least consult with qualified counsel to get advice, asap. If serious about hiring counsel to help in this, and if this is in SoCal courts, feel free to contact me. However, the only 'legal' advice of value you will get here or elsewhere is to file your case before the statute runs. If you don't know how to do so effectively, hire an attorney to prepare the pleadings properly for you, then worry about what to do once the statute is protected.