Evans v. Horace Mann Life Ins. Co., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00254-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00254-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-13-2006 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Fraudulent misrepresentation Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-19-2005 Appealed from: SHARKEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED. Case Number: 04,009-V |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PAMELA EVANS |
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 - Fraudulent misrepresentation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Pamela Evans filed a complaint against Horace Mann Insurance Company and Leo Hawkins, Jr. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Horace Mann and Hawkins. Evans appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Evans argues that Hawkins misrepresented the policies she purchased when he told her that she was purchasing one policy that would accrue cash value, when only one portion of the policy accrued cash value To establish fraudulent misrepresentation, there must be clear and convincing evidence that shows a representation, its falsity, its materiality, the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of the truth, the speaker’s intent that it should be acted upon by the other party and in the manner reasonably contemplated, the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity, the hearer’s reliance on the truth, his right to rely and his consequent and proximate injury. Evans admitted in her deposition that Hawkins told her she was getting one policy with a cash value and a certain amount that would go to her children upon her death, and she went further to concede that she got exactly that. Therefore, she has failed to establish a false representation which is a key element to establish fraudulent misrepresentation. Evans even fails to prove negligent misrepresentation. Evans’ policy contained exactly what Hawkins told her it would. Even if Hawkins had misled Evans, everything was set forth in the policies, and it was easy to understand. Evans admitted during her deposition that she did not read the policy. Mississippi law provides as a matter of law that insureds are bound by the contents of a contract that they enter into even if they have not actually read it. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
