Weathers v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01180-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-01180-COA ; 2007-CT-01180-SCT ; 2007-CT-01180-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Fraud - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 - Due diligence Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-14-2007 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF METLIFE Case Number: 2001-0182-CV1 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court later reversed and remanded this judgment on 7/2/2009. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/HDList/..%5COpinions%5CCO57115.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DANIEL RAY WEATHERS |
JOHN A. OWENS,
DUDLEY H. CARTER,
SUSIE TAYLOR CARVER |
||
| Appellee: | METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY | SHERYL BEY |
|
|
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 - Fraud - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 - Due diligence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Daniel Weathers filed suit against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and negligent supervision. The circuit court granted MetLife’s motion for summary judgment. Weathers appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | MetLife argues that Weathers’s claim is time-barred because the statute of limitations accrued when the sale of the policy was complete on February 1, 1994. Weathers argues that the statute of limitations was tolled until 1999 when he received the class-action notice because, in 1994, MetLife fraudulently concealed the misrepresentations when McKie reassured Weathers that he did not have to pay premiums out of pocket after ten years. Section 15-1-49 provides a three-year statute of limitations for claims of fraud. The statute of limitations accrues upon the completion of the sale of the insurance policy. However, the statute of limitations can be tolled for claims of fraudulent concealment. A plaintiff must show two things to prove fraudulent concealment: an affirmative act by the defendant that prevented discovery of the claim, and the plaintiff exercised due diligence to discover the defendant’s concealed fraud. In his deposition, Weathers admits that he did not read the entire policy; but undeniably, Weathers read enough of the policy to be alarmed and voice concern over some of its provisions. Knowledge of the contents of a contract are imputed to the parties thereto, even where they have not read the contract. Weathers was put on notice that the policy’s language was contrary to the illustrations and oral representations that he had received from McKie. As such, Weathers failed to exercise due diligence to discover his cause of action. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
