239 So. 3d 516
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- In April 2010 the Strouds sought "cargo" insurance for David’s commercial hauling business; Conn Agency employee Guzman placed a Progressive Gulf policy naming David as insured.
- In June 2010 a trailer strike damaged David’s cargo; Progressive denied the claim on July 15, 2010.
- Deonna filed suit on August 1, 2013 purportedly on behalf of David (whom she alleged was non compos mentis), more than three years after the denial.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Miss. Code Ann. § 15‑1‑49’s three‑year statute of limitations.
- Plaintiffs argued tolling under the savings statute, § 15‑1‑59, because David allegedly has been of unsound mind since a 2003 fall; they relied on physician affidavits and a later conservatorship appointment (2014).
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that David was non compos mentis during the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the three‑year statute of limitations was tolled because David was "unsound of mind" during the limitations period | David was non compos mentis due to a 2003 brain injury; tolling under § 15‑1‑59 applies so suit timely | Statute ran from Progressive's July 15, 2010 denial; plaintiffs failed to present clear and convincing evidence of incompetence during the limitations period | Held for defendants — plaintiffs did not produce sufficient, fact‑based evidence to show incapacity by clear and convincing evidence; limitations bar applies |
| Whether the conservatorship appointment (2014) retroactively establishes incapacity during 2010–2013 | Conservatorship order and supporting affidavits prove incapacity predating the filing | Conservatorship was entered after the limitations period and is not binding on defendants; appointment alone does not establish incapacity for earlier period | Held for defendants — post‑hoc conservatorship does not create a genuine issue about incapacity during the limitations period |
| Whether references to David’s possession of a driver’s license undermine the ruling | Court’s mention of license relied on facts outside record and improper basis for summary judgment | Any such remark was immaterial; appellate review is de novo and decision stands on other record evidence | Held for defendants — license remark irrelevant; appellate court affirms on correct legal basis |
| Whether claims against Conn and Guzman accrued only when they answered (because they never formally denied coverage) | Agent defendants did not deny coverage, so plaintiff’s claims against them accrued later | Accrual occurred at latest when insurer (Progressive) denied the claim — agent’s lack of formal denial is irrelevant | Held for defendants — accrual triggered by insurer’s denial; Conn and Guzman entitled to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Rockwell v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins., 710 So. 2d 388 (Miss. 1998) (summary‑judgment standard and application when statute of limitations raised)
- Shippers Express v. Chapman, 364 So. 2d 1097 (Miss. 1978) (test for mental incompetency tolling: inability to manage ordinary affairs of life)
- Oaks v. Sellers, 953 So. 2d 1077 (Miss. 2007) (statute of limitations for agent‑failure‑to‑procure claims accrues on insurer denial)
- USF&G Co. v. Conservatorship of Melson, 809 So. 2d 647 (Miss. 2002) (conservator appointment effect on tolling and limitations)
- Haygood v. First Nat’l Bank of New Albany, 517 So. 2d 553 (Miss. 1987) (summary judgment approach when clear‑and‑convincing proof is required)