Watts v. Horace Mann Life Ins. Co., et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-00253-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00253-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-17-2006
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Insurance - Mootness - Statute of limitations - Fraudulent concealment - Suitability
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-14-2005
Appealed from: SHARKEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Frank G. Vollor
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEES.
Case Number: 04,044-V

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: DEELLA WATTS




PRECIOUS TYRONE MARTIN, DAWN LAVERNE STOUGH



 

Appellee: HORACE MANN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND LEO HAWKINS, JR. ARTHUR F. JERNIGAN, SAMUEL ERNEST LINTON ANDERSON, STACI BOZANT O’NEAL  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Insurance - Mootness - Statute of limitations - Fraudulent concealment - Suitability

Summary of the Facts: The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. DeElla Watts purchased two life insurance policies from Horace Mann Life Insurance Company, covering the lives of her two children. Shortly after the expiration of the policies, Watts sued Horace Mann and Leo Hawkins, Horace Mann’s salesman, on the theory that Horace Mann had misrepresented the nature of the policies to her. After discovery, the court granted Horace Mann’s motion for summary judgment. Watts appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Mootness The court held that, since neither child died while the policies were active, Watts’s claim was moot because she had never attempted, and could never attempt, to collect under the policies. The claimed injury to Watts is the amount of money she spent paying for unwanted policies for thirteen years, an injury which is not moot. Therefore, the court was incorrect in finding that Watts’s claim was moot. Issue 2: Statute of limitations Watts argues that her claim is not time-barred because the language of the policies that she purchased was so ambiguous that she could not have determined the true nature of the policies by reading them. Horace Mann argues that any cause of action had to be filed within three years of Watts’s purchase of the policies (1993 and 1996, respectively). The language of the policies was clear and unambiguous, despite Watts’s arguments to the contrary. Not only were the policies clear and unambiguous, but they also encouraged Watts to carefully review her copy to ensure that she was satisfied. Watts also argues that a Horace Mann executive admitted that the policy language was ambiguous. However, a reading of the executive’s deposition testimony does not reveal any admission that the policy language was ambiguous. Watts also argues that Horace Mann or its agents fraudulently concealed the true nature of her contract. In order to succeed on a fraudulent concealment claim, a plaintiff must prove that some affirmative act or conduct was done and prevented discovery of a claim, and that due diligence was performed on their part to discover it. There is no evidence in the present case that any diligence was exercised by Watts to discover her claim. Watts’s deposition testimony indicated that she was fully capable of reading and writing, and therefore could have understood the clear and unambiguous terms of her insurance policies if she had read them. Therefore, Watts’s 2003 claim is time-barred. Issue 3: Suitability For the first time on rehearing, Watts argues as a basis for a claim that the policies were not suitable for her needs. Either as an independent ground for recovery or as an additional argument to support fraud, this argument is presented too late in the proceedings to require examination.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court