Montgomery v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill.
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00225-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00225-COA ; 2011-CT-00225-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-20-2012 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Uninsured motorist claim - Section 15-1-49 - Statute of limitations - Reasonable knowledge - Section 83-9-5(e) - Settlement negotiations Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-27-2011 Appealed from: Stone County Circuit Court Judge: Roger T. Clark Disposition: GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Case Number: 2008-0223 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Falesca Montgomery |
ANDREW CHARLES BURRELL |
|
|
| Appellee: | Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois | W. WRIGHT HILL JR. JAN F. GADOW | ||
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 - Uninsured motorist claim - Section 15-1-49 - Statute of limitations - Reasonable knowledge - Section 83-9-5(e) - Settlement negotiations |
| Summary of the Facts: | Falesca Montgomery filed a claim against Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, under her uninsured/underinsured-motorists coverage after she suffered injuries in an automobile accident. The circuit court granted Safeco’s motion to dismiss the claim based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. Falesca appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Falesca argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the accident report, which Falesca received six to ten days after the accident at issue, and the letter sent to Safeco by Falesca’s attorney regarding notice of a potential uninsured-motorists claim, both were sufficient to trigger the start of the statute of limitations under section 15-1-49 on January 4, 2006. A cause of action against an insurer for uninsured-motorist benefits is subject to the three-year statute of limitations of section 15-1-49. The statute of limitations for an uninsured-motorist claim begins to run when it can be reasonably known that the damages suffered exceed the limits of insurance available to the alleged tortfeasor. Within a week to ten days after the accident, Falesca's counsel sent notice to Safeco of a potential uninsured-motorist claim, notifying Safeco that Falesca was aware of the possibility of an uninsured-motorist claim. The circuit court ruled that this letter and the accident report, which Falesca received approximately ten days after the accident, sufficiently showed that Falesca possessed reasonable knowledge that the damage suffered exceeded the limits of insurance available to the driver of the other car. Falesca argues that the accident report only showed that the other driver possessed “no proof of insurance”; the report did not state that he had “no insurance.” Falesca also states that the accident report provided no information regarding someone else who Falesca claims is the owner of the vehicle. However, receipt of the accident report, reflecting that the driver possessed no proof of insurance, provided Falesca with reasonable knowledge that the damages suffered exceed the limits of insurance available for purposes of running the statute of limitations under section 15-1-49. Falesca also argues that according to section 83-9-5(e) and insurance policy terms, notice of the claim must first be given by the insurance company, and no suit may be brought sooner than sixty days after written proof of loss has been given, nor later than three years after the proof of loss. She contends that based on the statute, the statute of limitations in the present case could not begin to run on January 4, 2006 or before and that the August 2007 settlement negotiations should have started the running of the statute of limitations, explaining that from the time of the negotiations, it can be reasonably determined all parties possessed awareness that recovery from the driver was unlikely. However, Mississippi’s accrual law does not look to the offer of settlement as notice of inadequate insurance; instead, it asks when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the defendant was uninsured. Furthermore, section 83-9-5 concerns health and accident insurance and is not part of the Uninsured Motorists Act. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
