Summerhill v. Terminix, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5998
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Summerhill, on behalf of a putative Arkansas class, sued Terminix for breach, warranty, failure to warn, negligence, and DTPA violations for pre-1996 termite barrier practices.
- The district court dismissed as time-barred and for failure to plead fraudulent concealment with particularity under Rule 9(b).
- Summerhill filed a first amended complaint alleging an implied-in-law duty to erect complete chemical barriers and concealment of Arkansas law requiring such barriers.
- Termininx moved again to dismiss, arguing the FAC still failed to plead tolling by fraudulent concealment with adequate specificity.
- The district court held that concealment was not the type of affirmative concealment required and that discovery timing was not pled, leading to dismissal.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying Arkansas tolling standards and ruling discovery timing must be pleaded to support tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAC pleadings satisfy Rule 9(b) for fraudulent concealment tolling | Summerhill asserts affirmative concealment facts with specificity. | Terminix contends FAC lacks particularity for concealment. | Insufficient; failure to plead discovery timing defeats tolling. |
| Whether discovery timing must be pled to toll limitations under fraudulent concealment | Discovery timing can be inferred or later discovered with diligence. | Discovery date must be pled; otherwise tolling fails. | Discovery timing must be pled; absence defeats tolling. |
| Whether fraudulent concealment can toll time-bar for pre-1996 claims under Arkansas law | Concealment of non-disclosed law-required barriers tolls the period. | Concealment must be timely and specifically pled; otherwise tolling fails. | No tolling established due to pleading deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Stoltz, 311 Ark. 313, 843 S.W.2d 842 (1992) (defines affirmative concealment requirement for tolling)
- Paine v. Jefferson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2010) (sets burden-shifting for tolling under Arkansas law)
- Martin v. Arthur, 3 S.W.3d 684 (Ark. 1999) (discovery or exercise of diligence governs tolling period)
- Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135 (1879) (requirement to plead discovery specifics to tolling)
- Murray v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 92 F. 868 (8th Cir. 1899) (same discovery and pleading spirit for tolling)
- Stewart Coach Indus., Inc. v. Moore, 512 F. Supp. 879 (S.D. Ohio 1981) (Rule 9(b) requires pleading date of discovery)
- Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 492 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2007) ( Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standard for fraud)