Ridgway Lane & Associates, Inc. v. Marcus J. and Patricia Byrd Family Trust
189 So. 3d 626
| Miss. | 2016Background
- Marcus and Patricia Byrd purchased a home in a Brandon, MS subdivision managed by Ridgway Lane & Associates and governed by The Timbers HOA; the home allegedly suffered repeated leaks from 2004–2010 that fostered mold growth.
- Marcus Byrd (post–liver transplant, immunosuppressed) experienced chronic respiratory symptoms from about 2006 onward, had chest x‑ray abnormalities on January 21, 2008, and later was diagnosed with bronchiectasis (records showing definitive diagnosis by 2010).
- The Byrds sued Ridgway and the HOA on April 21, 2011 asserting property damage and personal injury (mold exposure) claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the three‑year statute of limitations; the circuit court granted summary judgment as to property damage claims but denied it as to personal injury claims and denied exclusion of the Byrds’ pulmonology expert.
- Defendants obtained interlocutory appeal on the denial as to personal injury claims; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed grant of summary judgment for property damage and affirmed denial as to personal injury, remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the personal‑injury claims are time‑barred under the 3‑year statute (discovery rule accrual) | Byrds: injury was not diagnosed until ~2010; suit filed within three years of diagnosis | Defendants: Byrd was aware (or should have been) of injury by Jan 21, 2008 (abnormal chest x‑ray and symptoms), so claims are time‑barred | Court: fact question exists about when Byrd knew or should have known; denial of summary judgment on personal‑injury claims affirmed and case remanded |
| Whether property‑damage claims were time‑barred | Byrds: (implicit) timely or otherwise not resolved on appeal | Defendants: statute of limitations barred property claims | Court: grant of summary judgment for defendants on property damage affirmed (no appellate challenge to that ruling) |
| Whether defendants preserved alternative discovery‑rule procedural arguments for appeal | Byrds: N/A | Ridgway: trial court erred in partially denying summary judgment on discovery rule ground but failed to obtain trial‑court ruling on reconsideration | Court: forfeiture; appellate court declined to address the unruled‑upon alternative because movant failed to secure a trial‑court ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrus v. Ellis, 887 So. 2d 175 (Miss. 2004) (standard of review for issues of law and statutes of limitations)
- Leslie v. City of Biloxi, 758 So. 2d 430 (Miss. 2000) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in favor of non‑movant)
- Angle v. Koppers, Inc., 42 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2010) (cause of action accrues upon discovery of injury, not discovery of cause)
- Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton, 94 So. 3d 1051 (Miss. 2012) (medical imaging suggesting disease may not establish definitive diagnosis; discovery date is often a jury question)
- Weathers v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 14 So. 3d 688 (Miss. 2009) (discovery timing is a factual question for the jury)