Susan DeCoursey v. American General Life Ins., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8972

In 1985 Susan DeCoursey’s husband purchased a $250,000 life policy; he and their son died in August 1986 and her initial claim was denied because the insurer said the policy had lapsed.
The insurer (American General) later (2011–2013) reviewed death records, concluded the policy was in force at death, and paid DeCoursey $250,000 in January 2013.
DeCoursey demanded 9% statutory interest from 1986; the insurer refused and, after a MODI complaint prompted further review, discovered records showing the policy had lapsed nine days before the husband’s death.
The insurer notified DeCoursey that the payment had been erroneous and offered a $25,000 add-on if she returned funds; she sued in state court (vexatious refusal, statutory interest, breach, unjust enrichment); insurer removed and counterclaimed for unjust enrichment.
The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer on DeCoursey’s claims as time-barred (10-year Missouri statute) and granted summary judgment to DeCoursey on the insurer’s unjust-enrichment counterclaim (holding the insurer had voluntarily paid).
The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of DeCoursey’s claims as untimely but reversed and remanded on the insurer’s restitution counterclaim, holding restitution allowed for mistaken payments even if the payor was negligent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did DeCoursey’s claims accrue for Missouri’s 10-year statute?	Accrual occurred in 2013 when she learned insurer’s records showed the policy did not lapse until after death.	Accrual occurred in 1986 when her claim was denied and damage was ascertainable.	Claims accrued in 1986; 2013 suit time-barred.
Did the insurer’s 2013 payment toll or restart the limitations period?	Payment and a company note acknowledging interest (and MODI contact) tolled/restarted the period.	Insurer explicitly refused interest and payment did not acknowledge or restart the debt.	Payment did not toll/restart limitations; note was unsigned, undelivered, and insufficient.
Did fraudulent concealment toll the limitations period?	Insurer’s conduct (payment error) concealed facts and tolled the statute.	No affirmative concealment or duty to speak; error was a mistake, not fraud.	No evidence of affirmative concealment or duty to disclose; tolling not shown.
Can insurer recover unjust enrichment/restitution for mistaken payment despite having opportunity to investigate?	DeCoursey: insurer voluntarily paid and cannot recover because it had opportunity to discover lapse.	Insurer: payment was mistaken; restitution appropriate even if payor was negligent.	Court: insurer may pursue restitution; negligent payor can recover mistaken payments—reversed summary judgment for DeCoursey on counterclaim and remanded.

Midwestern Indem. Co. v. Brooks, 779 F.3d 540 (8th Cir.) (choice-of-law and diversity principles)
Huffman v. Credit Union of Tex., 758 F.3d 963 (8th Cir.) (accrual: damage ascertainable triggers limitations)
Brown v. CRST Malone, Inc., 739 F.3d 384 (8th Cir.) (insurance-dispute accrual upon notice of denial)
Boland v. Saint Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 471 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. 2015) (Missouri Supreme Court treatment of accrual/discovery rule)
Inv'rs Title Co., Inc. v. Hammonds, 217 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. 2007) (restitution/unjust enrichment framework in Missouri)
W. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Kohm, 638 S.W.2d 798 (Mo. Ct. App.) (payor negligence does not bar restitution for mistaken payment)
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Rice, 755 F.3d 621 (8th Cir.) (interpreting state-law questions when highest court has not spoken)
Owen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 533 F.3d 913 (8th Cir.) (fraudulent concealment requires affirmative act or duty to speak)