Oaks, et al. v. Sellers
| Docket Number: | 2006-IA-00005-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-12-2007 Opinion Author: EASLEY, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., DIAZ, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITT Non Participating Judge(s): COBB, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-12-2005 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: CV2003-0010CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | EDDIE OAKS, BRENDA OAKS, OAKS
INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. AND DESOTO
INSURANCE, INC. |
LARA A. COLEMAN
DAVID A. BARFIELD |
||
| Appellee: | DONALD E. SELLERS | CHARLES ABBOTT |
|
|
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 - Section 15-1-49 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donald Sellers filed suit against DeSoto Insurance, Inc., Eddie Oaks, Brenda Oaks, and Oaks Insurance Company, alleging that the defendants, as his insurance agents, negligently breached the duties owed to him by failing to procure an umbrella insurance policy, for business and personal liability, in the amount of $1 million; and by negligently misrepresenting to Sellers that he had complete coverage including personal, umbrella liability coverage in the amount of $1 million. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The three-year statute of limitations found in section 15-1-49 is applicable in this case. Sellers filed suit on January 13, 2003. The defendants argue that the statute of limitations began to run on August 26, 1997, the date that American States denied Sellers’ claim. Sellers argues that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of actual injury which was February 16, 2001, when the Tennessee Court of Appeals imputed liability to Sellers. Neither party disputes that Sellers purchased insurance for his unincorporated business and an umbrella insurance policy for $1 million in 1993. The record does not reveal whether Sellers received a copy of the policies. However, Sellers’ response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment revealed that while Oaks did not recall specifically reviewing the policy with Sellers, citing to the passage of many years, his general practice was to go over policies with clients. Sellers sued Oaks, Brenda, Oaks Insurance, and DeSoto Insurance, not American States, in 2003. However, Sellers bought the policy in 1993. While the record is unclear whether Sellers received a copy of the policy, he renewed the policy in 1996. Even giving Sellers the benefit of doubt that he never received a copy of his insurance policy, he knew at the latest on August 26, 1997, that his claim was denied by American States. This notification made clear that either American States was mistaken in their denial of the claim or Sellers was mistaken in the type of coverage that the insurance policies provided to him. Thereafter, American States paid no insurance proceeds on Sellers’ claim. American States’ denial of coverage deprived Sellers of legal representation paid by American States. Sellers suffered damage when American States denied coverage that Sellers believed he was entitled to have and paid for via insurance premiums. In addition, the denial of benefits by American States placed Sellers on notice that the defendants did not procure the type of business and personal insurance that he believed he had purchased. Clearly, Sellers filed his claim outside the three-year statute of limitations. Therefore, the court erred by denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
