Andrus v. Ellis
| Docket Number: | 2003-IA-01842-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-IA-01842-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-04-2004 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Credit insurance - Fraudulent inducement - Fraudulent concealment - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., and Dickinson, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-18-2003 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: Trial court denied summary judgment. Case Number: 2002-119-CV3 |
|
| Note: | Nature of case: Fraudulently induced them to purchase credit insurance policies in connection with consumer loans made by Commercial Credit Corporation. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Betty Andrus, Keith Barrett, Debera Bridges, Gary Coleman and Phillip Price |
H. MITCHELL COWAN
VIKKI J. TAYLOR
JOHN R. CHILES
REID STEPHENS MANLEY
ROBERT D. GHOLSON
MARCUS DOUGLAS EVANS |
||
| Appellee: | Charlie C. Ellis, Sammy Hancock, Azzie Mae Starr and Wanda N. Woods | T. ROE FRAZER F. LEE BOWIE |
|
|
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: | Credit insurance - Fraudulent inducement - Fraudulent concealment - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Several plaintiffs filed suit against eight individual defendants claiming that the defendants fraudulently induced them to purchase credit insurance policies in connection with consumer loans made by Commercial Credit Corporation. All defendants are either current or former employees of Commercial Credit, which is now known as CitiFinancial, Inc. The defendants filed a motion to sever and transfer and a motion for summary judgment. The court denied both motions. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for emergency stay and request for interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The trial court provided no reasons as to why it denied summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The three-year statute of limitations set forth in section 15-1-49 is controlling. The most recent loan transaction at issue occurred in 1995. With filing of the complaint occurring on March 22, 2002, the statute would bar all claims that accrued prior to March 22, 1999. Thus, in the absence of an exception, the claims are barred. The plaintiffs alleged that they were either not aware that they had purchased credit insurance or were misled into believing that it was necessary. In American Bankers’ Ins. Co. of Florida v. Wells, 819 So.2d 1196 (Miss. 2001), the Court ruled that the test on whether to toll the statute of limitations is whether a reasonable person similarly situated would have discovered potential claims. Applying the test, the claims in the instant case are barred. All plaintiffs testified during their depositions that they received copies of the loan documents. Contained in each loan agreement was an insurance disclosure which informed the borrower that credit insurance was not required and that the decision to make the loan would not be affected by the borrower’s decision. The plaintiffs are charged with notice and therefore all claims accrued at the time the loan agreements were executed. The running of the statute of limitations may also be tolled under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. This requires proof of two elements: subsequent affirmative acts of concealment and due diligence. Plaintiffs fail as to both elements. There are no specific charges of subsequent affirmative acts of concealment contained in either the record or the testimony of the plaintiffs. As for due diligence, all plaintiffs received copies of the loan documents. Yet, none raised an objection to the insurance until the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by section 15-1-49. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
