Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church v. Alfa Ins. Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01807-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01807-COA ; 2010-CT-01807-SCT ; 2010-CT-01807-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Statute of limitations - M.R.C.P. 59 - Savings statute - Section 15-1-69 Judge(s) Concurring: Griffis, P.J., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J., and Barnes, J., Concur in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-24-2010 Appealed from: Marion County Circuit Court Judge: R.I. Prichard, III Disposition: GRANTED APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS Case Number: 2010-0042P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church a/k/a Hub Community Baptist |
MARC L. FRISCHHERTZ
DAVID LEE BREWER |
|
|
| Appellee: | Alfa Insurance Corporation a/k/a Alfa General Insurance Corporation a/k/a Alfa Mutual General Insurance Company a/k/a Alfa Specialty Insurance Corporation | TOBY JUSTIN GAMMILL WHITNEY WARNER GLADDEN | ||
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 - M.R.C.P. 59 - Savings statute - Section 15-1-69 |
| Summary of the Facts: | This case arises from property damage sustained by Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church a/k/a HUB Community Baptist Church as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Sweet Valley’s insurance carrier, Alfa, paid benefits on October 14, 2005, in the amount of $9,951.89. On August 29, 2008, Sweet Valley filed its first complaint against Alfa, alleging a breach-of-contract cause of action. The trial court dismissed Sweet Valley’s case without prejudice on June 29, 2009. The trial court found Sweet Valley failed to cooperate in discovery, to adhere to the scheduling order, and to appear at the scheduled hearing on the matter. On July 8, 2009, Sweet Valley filed a motion to set aside the judgment or for a new trial. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied Sweet Valley’s motion to set aside the judgment. On the same day its motion was denied, January 1, 2010, Sweet Valley filed a new complaint against Alfa. Alfa subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted Alfa’s motion to dismiss. Sweet Valley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Sweet Valley argues that the trial court erred in granting Alfa’s motion to dismiss based upon the expiration of the statute of limitations. Specifically, Sweet Valley argues its complaint is not time-barred because the statute of limitations was tolled when its motion to set aside the judgment was filed on July 8, 2009. Sweet Valley claims its motion was filed pursuant to M.R.C.P. 59. Sweet Valley can offer no cases directly supporting its position. The cases Sweet Valley cites discuss Rule 59 motions staying the thirty-day time period to appeal, not the statute of limitations. Sweet Valley filed its new complaint well after the statute of limitations had expired. Thus, it was time-barred. Sweet Valley further argues the savings statute, section 15-1-69, applies to this matter. Sweet Valley contends the savings statute applies because the original complaint was dismissed as a matter of form. Section 15-1-69 applies to cases where the plaintiff has been defeated by some matter not affecting the merits, some defect or informality, which the plaintiff can remedy or avoid by a new process. Sweet Valley’s first complaint was dismissed due to its failure to cooperate in discovery, to adhere to the scheduling order, and to appear at the scheduled hearing on the matter. These are matters affecting the merits and not the result of some defect or informality. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
