Warren v. Horace Mann Life Ins. Co., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02291-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-02291-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-30-2006 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Statute of limitations - Fraud - Section 15-1-49 - Doctrine of ratification Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-14-2004 Appealed from: SHARKEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS. Case Number: 03-084 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LAURETTA WARREN |
PRECIOUS MARTIN, DAWN L. STOUGH |
||
| Appellee: | HORACE MANN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND LEO HAWKINS, JR. | ARTHUR F. JERNIGAN, SAMUEL L. ANDERSON, STACI B. 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 - Statute of limitations - Fraud - Section 15-1-49 - Doctrine of ratification |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lauretta Warren sued Horace Mann Life Insurance Company and Leo Hawkins, Jr., for fraud in connection with the sale of two life insurance policies. The judge granted summary judgment to Horace Mann and Hawkins. Warren appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Statute of limitations Warren argues it was error for the judge to hold that her fraud claim was time-barred, because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the 1993 policy was ambiguous. If the policy were ambiguous, then a reading of it would not have led to discovery of her cause of action. A cause of action for fraud is subject to the three-year statute of limitations set out in section 15-1-49. This three year period begins to run once the cause of action accrues. A claim for fraudulent inducement accrues upon the completion of the sale induced by the fraud. Warren agreed to purchase the first policy on March 24, 1993. The policy did not go into effect until May 1. Thus, the sale was complete on May 1, 1993. Warren had until May 1, 1996 to file her fraud claim. Warren filed the lawsuit in December of 2003. If the defendant fraudulently conceals a cause of action, then the cause of action is deemed to accrue at the time at which such fraud shall be, or with reasonable diligence might have been, first known or discovered. Warren testified that her attorney sent her a letter inquiring whether she had a policy with Horace Mann. Before consulting with her attorney, she read her policy. Upon reading the policy, Warren was under the impression that it was not what Hawkins had represented. Based on her own testimony, the language of the policy did not in fact prevent Warren from discovering her claim. Thus, the court was correct to find that the statute of limitations had run. Issue 2: Doctrine of ratification Warren argues it was error for the judge to deem her claim based on the 2003 policy barred by the doctrine of ratification. The testimony does not reveal a ratification of the 2003 policy, if Warren’s knowledge of the terms came before entering the contract. Rather, this evidence indicates that there was no fraud in the first place. Warren testified about her decision to purchase the 2003 policy. In January or February of 2003, she discovered the 1993 policy was not the two separate policies that she was originally led to believe. Warren called Horace Mann’s offices and was informed that she had the option of purchasing a whole life policy on the same terms as her 1993 policy. She elected to do so, because she did not want to lose the life insurance on her sons. Hawkins told Warren that the 2003 policy provided for $41,062 in life insurance coverage for each son. She maintains he did not explain to her that the 2003 policy was also a joint life policy. Warren knew the 1993 policy was not what she wanted. She nevertheless requested to apply these same terms to the 2003 policy. All of this happened before Hawkins made the fraudulent statements. Warren had already made up her mind to buy the policy, and she did not in fact rely on Hawkins’s subsequent misrepresentations. Thus, her fraud claim fails on the merits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
