How have courts dealt with the issue of whether a plaintiff's claim was timely?

Moreover, we need not consider plaintiff's argument that the trial court wrongly determined that his claim accrued in December 2014, or that the City is estopped from challenging the timeliness of his claim, because these issues were never raised in the trial court. Plaintiff has never, until this appeal, taken the position that his claim was timely, and therefore the issue has been forfeited. (Hepner v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486.) And, in any event, these claims fail on the merits. The police appear to have accurately reported the accident location, and were not responsible for identifying other potentially liable parties. As for plaintiff's claim to a right to a jury trial, there are no disputed facts as to when any of the key events occurred for the jury to resolve, and the court properly determined as a matter of law that his claim was inexcusably late.

The order is affirmed. Defendant is awarded its costs on appeal.