Bank of Commerce v. Southgroup Insurance and Financial Services, LLC, and Norman F. White, d/b/a Barry & Brewer
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00622-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00622-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-15-2011 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 - Misrepresentation of coverage Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Chandler and King, JJ. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. Dissent Joined By : Joined In Part by Lamar, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2010 Appealed from: Leflore County Circuit Court Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: Granted summary judgment for SouthGroup and White on two grounds: (1) that the Bank’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) that the damages sought by the Bank constituted a voluntary payment. Case Number: 2008-0089CICI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Bank of Commerce |
H. D. BROCK
CHARLES J. SWAYZE, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Southgroup Insurance and Financial Services, LLC, and Norman F. White, d/b/a Barry & Brewer | DAVID A. BARFIELD STEVEN LLOYD LACEY | ||
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 - Misrepresentation of coverage |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Bank of Commerce brought an action against SouthGroup Insurance and Financial Services, LLC and Norman F. White, an agent of SouthGroup, for negligent misrepresentations made by White regarding the type of liability insurance coverage they would need to purchase. The trial court granted summary judgment for SouthGroup and White. The Bank appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In insurance cases, stating that the three-year statute of limitations, pursuant to section 15-1-49, began to run at the latest when the insured received written notice from the insurer that his claim was denied. If an insured is put on notice by the plain language of the policy that the agent’s verbal representations are false, a fraud claim accrues on the date of the sale. However, if the plain language of the policy does not clearly contradict the agent’s representations such that the insured is put on notice, a fraud claim accrues when the insured becomes aware of the misrepresentation. In this case, the Bank argues that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until it suffered an actual loss, and that this loss did not occur until March 20, 2008, after the federal RICO claims were settled. The Bank claims that White’s payment of the Bank’s expenses from the state claims and Chubb’s payment of the defense costs in the federal RICO claims tolled the running of the statute of limitations until they ceased such action, and the Bank had an actual cause of action. However, this argument is misguided. When an insured becomes aware or is put on notice by his insurance company that there is a possible problem with the insurance policy, the statute of limitations begins to run. In this case, the statute of limitations began to run on January 18, 2005, when the Bank was notified by Chubb that it did not have entity coverage and that Chubb was under no duty to defend or indemnify the Bank in the pending six state-law complaints. Before the Bank received the letter, it was not clear to the Bank that it would not be covered under the policy. However, the Bank became aware of the misrepresentation of the coverage when it received the letter on January 18, 2005, and the statute of limitations began to run that day. The Bank did not file this cause of action until July 18, 2008, six months after the statute of limitations had run. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
