What is the test for waiving a statute of limitations defense?

Western argues it offered and the court refused a general jury instruction on statutes of limitations, and that given the refusal, it would have been futile to request specific instructions on the limitations periods for breach of contract, breach of covenant, and insurance bad faith. We reject that argument. The general instruction is too broad to cover the specific limitations periods defendant should have requested. If Western thought the claims on the policies were time-barred, it was required to offer the appropriate jury instructions to the trial court in order to preserve the issue for appeal. (Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1533-1535, 254 Cal.Rptr. 492.) Western waived the statute of limitations defense as to the claims on the policies.

Western next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdicts on the breach of contract, breach of covenant, and insurance bad faith claims. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, and resolve conflicts in support of the judgment. (Chodos v. Insurance Co. of North America (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 86, 97, 178 Cal.Rptr. 831.)

1. Breach of Contract-Sufficiency of the Evidence