Pate v. Conseco Life Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01496-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-03-2008 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Terms of contract - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-03-2006 Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of Conseco. Case Number: 03-158(F)I |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charles E. Pate |
GRADY L. McCOOL, III,
JOSEPH E. ROBERTS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Conseco Life Insurance Company and Jack Creely | JACOB MICHAEL JENKINS, CHARLES E. GRIFFIN |
|
|
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 - Terms of contract - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Pate obtained a life insurance policy from Lamar Life Insurance Company. Bill Ogden was the company representative from Lamar, and Jack Creely was the agent involved in the transaction. Lamar Life later merged with Conseco Life Insurance Company. Pate had a planned monthly premium of $186.22 for the $50,000 policy. When Pate received a letter informing him that he would have to pay an increased premium of $743.56 or his policy would lapse, he filed an action for breach of contract. Conseco filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. Pate appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pate argues that the terms of the contract are clear regarding the amount and payment of the premium. The record indicates that Pate’s contract provided for a planned monthly premium of $186.22. Conseco fails to point to any language contained in the policy which would allow for an increase in the planned monthly premium. Therefore, the terms of the contract plainly and unambiguously support Pate and should be construed as written. Pate also argues that the court erred in holding that the statute of limitations barred all of Pate’s claims against Conseco. He argues that he was expressly told, as an inducement to purchase the policy, that his monthly premium would be $186.22 and would never increase and therefore, a claim resulting from an increase in premiums would not ripen until he was put on notice of the increase. Pate’s cause of action accrued when his premium was increased in 2001. Pate filed his action in 2003, which was within the three-year statute of limitations provided by section 15-1-49. Therefore, the trial court erred in finding no genuine issue of material fact and in finding that Conseco is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
