Milton Stephens, et al. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. Of the U. S., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00498-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-00498-SCT ; 2002-CA-00498-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-20-2003 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Fraud - Statute of limitations - Fraudulent concealment Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): McRae, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Diaz, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-05-2002 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: Granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice based upon the statute of limitations. Case Number: 2001-0561-Cl |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Milton Stephens, Helen S. Stephens and Henry E. Palmer |
PRECIOUS TYRONE MARTIN |
||
| Appellee: | The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and George C. Bell | ROBERT L. GIBBS ANNE CLARKE SANDERS AMY MANDERSON KLOTZ CLAIRE W. KETNER SHELDON G. ALSTON DAVID A. BARFIELD ANDREA LA'VERNE FORD EDNEY LARA A. COLEMAN RICHARD D. GAMBLIN |
|
|
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 - Fraudulent concealment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Milton Stephens and Helen Stephens and Henry Palmer filed suit against The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and George Bell, an insurance agent, alleging that the insurance agent orally misrepresented certain aspects of their policies prior to the purchase of the policies. The Stephenses allege that Bell orally stated that the monthly premiums would be $45.10 and the policy purchased in 1972 would be fully paid in twenty years while Palmer alleges that Bell stated that if Palmer paid a monthly premium of $45.88 until he reached age 58, the premium would be fully paid with dividends. Equitable and Bell filed motions to dismiss which the court granted. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The plaintiffs argue that the court erred in holding that the statute of limitations ran on their fraud claims in 1975. In 1972, the statute of limitations for fraud was six years. This was amended in 1989 to three years. A written contract cannot be varied by prior oral agreements, and a person is under an obligation to read a contract before signing it and cannot complain of an oral misrepresentation where the error would have been disclosed by reading the contract. The terms of the Stephenses’ policy unambiguously state that the premium was payable for the jointlife of the spouses while the unambiguous, written terms of Palmer’s policy stated that a monthly premium of $45.88 was payable until he reached age 70 and a monthly premium of $37.97 was payable thereafter. The causes of action accrued when the policies were purchased in 1972. While the court was correct in ruling that the plaintiffs were barred by the statute of limitations for fraud, the court incorrectly applied a three-year period rather than a six-year period. Although the statute of limitations ran in 1978, the outcome is the same since the plaintiffs did not file suit until 2001 well outside of the statute of limitations. In cases concerning a claim of fraudulent concealment, fraudulent concealment of a cause of action tolls its statute of limitations. To establish fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff must show some act or conduct of an affirmative nature designed to prevent and which does prevent discovery of the claim and due diligence was preformed on their part to discover it. Here, the policies were unambiguous and clearly stated the terms of payment and there was no affirmative act to prevent discovery since the terms were written into the policy. In fact, the plaintiffs continued paying policy premiums after the date that the policy premiums allegedly should have ceased in 1992 and 1995. The plaintiffs waited over nine years and over six years respectively to file their claims once the premiums were to have vanished. Therefore, their claims are barred by the statute of limitations. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
