301 So.3d 1208
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Security Plan issued two life insurance policies (1992, 1996) on Marion Meggs Vincent; one policy named Ferdinand Meggs, Jr. as beneficiary and the other named her Estate with Meggs as next of kin.
- Marion Vincent died on August 22, 2008; Security Plan received irrevocable assignments to Davis Mortuary and paid policy proceeds to Davis Mortuary in November 2008.
- Ferdinand Meggs filed suit on October 4, 2018 (over ten years after the insured's death) alleging forgery, fraud, and collusion deprived him of the proceeds.
- Security Plan filed a peremptory exception of prescription noting the policies contained a 1 year + 60 day suit limitation and invoking La. C.C. art. 3499 (10-year prescription); the trial court sustained the exception and dismissed Meggs' claims.
- Exhibits attached to Security Plan’s exception (death certificate, assignments, affidavit) were not formally introduced at the prescription hearing; appellate court therefore limited review to the petition's allegations.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed: Meggs’ suit was prescribed on its face under the ten-year rule, and contra non valentem was neither sufficiently pleaded nor proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable prescriptive period for life-insurance claim | Meggs invokes discovery/contra non valentem to avoid preclusive effect of policy time-limit | Security Plan contends suit is untimely under policy 1 year + 60 days and under La. C.C. art. 3499 (10 years) | Court applied 10-year prescriptive period; Meggs sued after >10 years, so claim prescribed |
| Availability of contra non valentem (discovery rule) | Meggs: he did not learn of his beneficiary rights until May 2018 due to fraud/forgery | Security Plan: plaintiff's allegations are conclusory and not supported by evidence; he had duty of diligence | Court held contra non valentem not shown: allegations insufficiently particularized and no evidence of delayed discovery or concealment |
| Sufficiency of fraud pleading (to invoke tolling) | Meggs alleged forgery and collusion by defendants and unknown third person | Security Plan: allegations are conclusory and fail to meet La. C.C.P. art. 856 particularity standard | Court held fraud not pleaded with particularity; conclusory assertions insufficient to toll prescription |
| Consideration of documentary evidence attached to exception | Meggs argued exhibits were not properly in evidence | Security Plan relied on attached death certificate, assignments, affidavit to prove payment and timing | Court held documents attached to pleading/memo but not introduced at hearing cannot be considered; judge must decide on petition's face |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Haygood, 892 So.2d 1261 (burden shifts when prescription is evident on face of pleading)
- Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 983 So.2d 84 (documents not formally introduced at exception hearing cannot be considered)
- Lord v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 434 So.2d 1179 (actions on life insurance policies prescribe in ten years)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (four categories of contra non valentem/tolling)
- Renfroe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Development, 809 So.2d 947 (discovery rule not available when reasonable diligence would have revealed claim)
- Bottinelli Real Estate, L.L.C. v. Johns Manville, Inc., 288 So.3d 179 (fraud must be pleaded with particularity under La. C.C.P. art. 856)