I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CT - 0 2 2 4 4 - S CT J A NE M. WI

L B OU R N, A ST

R US T EE OF T HE JAM ES G . W I LB O U RN I RR EVO CA BL E T

RU ST v. TH E EQ UI TABLE LI

FE A SS UR AN CE SOC I ETY O F T H E U N I T ED ST A T ES A N D W I L L I A M J. BYRD ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 03/ 2005 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. KE NNE T H L
. T HOMAS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: QUI TM AN COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : R IC H A R D E
. W IL B O U R N , III ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : M AR GA RET O ERTLI NG CU PP LES W
. W AYN E DRI NKW ATE R, J R. STEPH EN L. TH O M A S J E F F RE Y R
. BL AC KW OOD J O H N A LEX A N D ER PU RV I S DANI E L L E DAI GL E I RE L AND G. TOD D B UR W ELL W
. J EF F REY COL LI ER WI L L I A M L A R R Y L A T H A M NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D
- 12/ 11/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. O n M ay 1 7, 200 4, Jan e W
. W il b o u rn, as T rustee o f t h e Ja m es G
. W il b o u rn I rr evoca bl e Trus t( “Trus t ”) , f i l ed sui tagai ns tE qui t abl e L i f e A s s ur ance S oci ety of

the U ni t ed St at es ( “Equi t abl e”) and i t s agent , W i l l i am J. B yr d. T he Trus t ’ s tw enty- f i ve- countcompl ai nt

### “Whe n cons ide ring a m oti on to di sm is s, theall egati ons in thecom plaint mus t be 1 

### taken a s true. . . . ” Scaggsv. GPCH-GP, Inc . , 931 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Mis s. 2006) ( quoting La ng v. Ba y St. L ou is/Wa velan d Sch. D ist. , 76 4 S o. 2d1 23 4 (Miss. 19 99 )). Th erefore, th is Court ’s fa ct

ualsummary large ly inc orporat es the Trus t’ s com plaint and take s theal le gations cont ained ther ein as tr

ue. 2 s oughtactual and puni t i ve damages bas ed upon t he al l eged f r audul entconcea l m entand or al
m i s r epr es ent at i ons of

E qui t abl e, thr ough B yr d, r egar di ng “vani s hi ng pr emi um s ” on a w hol el i f e i ns ur ance pol i cy i s s ued t o t he Trus ti n 1986. T her eaf t er , t he C i r cui tC our tof Q ui t m an C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , gr ant ed the “M ot i on t o D i s m i s s ” of E qui t abl e and Byrd, bas ed upon the
s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he ci r cui tcourtconcl uded that“[ t ] he t i m e f orf i l i ng any cl ai m ar i s i ng fro m th e a lleg e d re p re se n tatio n s to th e c o n tra ry b y th e D e fe n d a n ts s tar ted to ru n o n th e d a te of del i very of

the pol i cy i n 1986. T hus , [ the Trus t ’ s ] cl ai m f i l ed her ei n over17 year s l at er i s t i m e[
- ] barr ed. ” O n appea l , the M i s s i s s i ppi C our tof A ppeal s deemed the s t atut e of lim ita tio n s is s u e to b e d is p o s it iv e a n d a ff ir m e d
. See W

il bo u rn v. E qu itab le L i

fe A ssur. Soc’ y of the U nited States , 200 7 M i ss. A pp . L E X IS 501 at*2, 14 (M i ss. C t . A p p . A u g u st 7 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h is C o u rt s u b s e q u e n tly g ra n te d th e T ru s t’ s “ P e titio n fo r W ri t o f C e rt io ra ri .” FACTS 1 ¶2. O n A ugus t7, 1986, the Trus tp urchased a $ 1, 00 0, 000 w hol e- l i f e i ns ur ance pol i cy f r om E qui t abl e’ s a gent , Byrd. T he T rus t ’ s compl ai nts t at es thatB yr d r epr es ent ed that“[ the T rus t ] w oul d onl y have t o pay ei ghtyear s ’ w or th of out
- of
- pocketpr emi um s and ther eaf t er th e p o licy w o u ld su sta in itse lf a n d th e p re m iu m s w o u ld ‘v a n ish .’” T h e p o licy e x p re ss ly pr ovi des , “[ i ] ns ur ance payabl e upon dea th. Pr emi um s payabl e f orl i f e. Pol i cy part i ci pat es in d iv id e n d s.” T h e p o licy fu rth e r sta tes th a t:

### In the amount of $14, 300 annua lly. 2 

### In f ac t, theTrus t ha d ma de one pr em ium paym ent of $28, 600 and s ix prem ium 3 

### paym ent s o f $ 14 ,30 0, for a t ota l of

se ven pr em ium

paym ent s. Howeve r, theTrus t’ s com plaint al le ges that t

he initia l payme nt of

$2 8,600 “ cons ti tut ed two year’ s wor th of premiums.” Acc ording to t

he Trus t’ s com

plaint , “alt

hough [ theTr

ust ’s ] prem ium s s hould have 4 

### vani she d, [ theTrust ] sent

[Equit abl e] payment

. . . for what it s insured wa s t old woul d be the ninth an d fin al premium payment.” 3 [ t ] hi s pol i cy, and the att ache d c opy of the appl i cat i on f

orthi s pol i cy, m ake up th e e n tire c o n tra c t. O nl y ourP r es i dentor one of our V i ce Pr es i dent s can m odi f y thi s contr actor w ai ve an y o f our r i gh t s or r equ i rem ents un der i t . T he p ers on m ak ing these c h a n g e s mu s tp u tth e m i n wr i t i n g a n d s i g n th e m. T her eaf t er , the Trus tpai d $28, 600 t o Equi t abl e. Thi s compl i ed w i th the pol i cy pr ovi s i on that “[ t ] he f i r s tpr emi um i s $28, 600. 00 and i s due on orbef or e del i very of the pol i cy. Subse quent p re m iu m s [ ] a re d u e o n A u g u s t 9 , 1 9 8 7 a n d e v e ry 1 2 m o n th s th e re a ft e r . . . .”

2 ¶3. T he T rustduly m ade prem i um paym ents of $1 4, 30 0 i n each of the fol l ow i ng si x years. O n Ju ly 2 3 , 1 9 9 3 , the T ru st re c e iv e d a “ N o tice o f P a y m e n t D u e ” fr o m E q u itab le. T h e T ru st, bel i evi ng i thad com pl et ed i t s obl i gat i on of ei ghtpr emi um payment s of $14, 300, cont act ed

3 Byr d i nq ui r i ng why s uc h no t i c e h a d be e n r e c e i ve d. Byr d a s s ur e d the Trus tt hatone addi t i onal pr emi um paymentw as neede d ( the e i gh th) , butthatthe pr emi um s w oul d ther eaf t er vani s h. T her eaf

t er , the T rus tm ade i t s ei ghth pr emi um payment( one f or$28, 600; s even f

or 4 $ 1 4 , 3 0 0 ). ¶4. H ow ever , on J ul y 27, 1994, the Trus tr ece i ved another“N ot i ce of Paym entD ue. ” T he T rust ag ain m ad e the p rem ium p ay m en t of $ 1 4 , 3 0 0 an d the n co n tacted B y rd. B y rd conf i r m ed thatthe Trus thad f ul f i l l ed i t s pr emi um obl i gat i on and pr om i s ed thatupon r ece i pt

### Th e T rust’s c ompl aint provide s that “[ t] he s tate me nt wa s not in t he amount

of the 5 

### yearly pre miums . Rather, it repre se nte d the di ff

er enc e be twe en the pol ic y’s earnings and the yearlypremium amount.” 4 o f a w ri tt en req u est for a refu n d , the s u b ject pre m ium p ay m en t w o u ld b e re turn ed . B y rd f ur theri ns truct ed t he T rus tt o submi ta form so thatf utur e pr emi um s coul d be t aken outof the pol i cy’ s earni ngs . T he Trus tcompl i ed and s ubs equent l y r ece i ved a pr emi um r ef und chec k i n the amountof

$14, 300 f

r om E qui t abl e. ¶ 5
. O n Ju ly 1 4 , 1 9 9 5 , y e t a n o th e r “ N o tice o f P a y m e n t D u e ” w a s re c e iv e d b y th e T ru st. O nce a gai n, the Trus tm ade the pr emi um paym entand cont act ed B yr d, w ho r ei t er at ed that the p o li cy ’s pre m ium s h ad v a n ish ed an d w ere b eing p aid fro m the p o li cy ea rnin g s. B y rd added thatthe Trus ts houl d i gnor e f utur e “N ot i ces of

Paym entD ue. ” O n A ugus t31, 1995, the Trus t ’ s uncas hed che ck w as r eturned by Equi t abl e. ¶6. I n 1996 and 1997, the Trus tr ece i ved “N oti ces of P aym ent D ue” f r om E qui t abl e. T hes e not i ces w er e di s r egar ded by t he Trus tbas ed upon the af or ement i oned advi ce of B yr d. Fol l ow i ng t he 1997 “N ot i ce of Paym entD ue, ” the Trus tdi d notr ece i ve another“N ot i ce of P a y me n tDu e ” u n t i l 2 0 0 2
. Du r i n g th i s p e r i o d , th e Tru s tb e l i e v e d th a tth e p o l i c y p r e mi u ms had i ndeed va ni s hed as r epr es ent ed. ¶7. O n A ugus t9, 2002, the T rus tr ece i ved a s t at ementf r om E qui t abl e t o r emi tpayment for p as t du e p rem ium s o r ha v e the p o li cy laps e. U p o n co n tacti n g B y rd, th e T rust’s 5 compl ai ntpr ovi des thati tw as i nf or m ed: th a t th e p o licy h a d n o t pe rfo rm e d as ex p e c ted a n d fu rth e r p re m iu m p a y m e n ts w oul d be r equi r ed orthe pol i cy w oul d l aps e. H ow ever , [ the T rus t ee] i ns ur ed w as al s o t ol d thatthe Trus tcoul d pay thes e pr em i um s w i th l oans f r om the

### The motion furthe r st at ed that “[ n] or c an [ theTrus te e] es ta bli sh that shewas dil ige nt 6 

### in atte mpting to di sc over

her cl ai ms , whe re thecle ar languageof thepolicy , of whic h [the Tru st] had a co py , cont

radi cted t he alle ged mi srepres ent

ati ons .”(Em

phas is adde d). 5 pol i cy. [ T he Trus t ] opt ed t o pa y the amount r equi r ed t o keep the pol i cy f r om l aps i ng w i th a l oan. A c c o rd in g to th e c o m p lain t, th e T ru st:
w as f ur thert ol d thatthe pol i cy’ s earni ngs l i kel y w oul d agai n r eac h a l evel w her e the pol i cy w oul d s us t ai n i t s el f
. Si nce 2002, ther e has cont i nued t o be a d i f f e r e nc e b e tw e e n the a mounto f the y e a r l y pr e mi um du e a nd the amount th e p o licy e a rn s. [T h e T ru st] h a s m a d e a ll su b se q u e n t p a y m e n ts o f th is di f f er ence thr ough l oans agai ns tthe pol i cy. ¶8. O n M ay 17, 2004, the T rus t f i l ed a compl ai nt i n the ci r cui t court cont ai ni ng tw entyf i ve count s and al l egi ng va r i ous t or t s a r i s i ng outof the purpor t ed f

r audul entconce al m entand
m i s r epr es ent at i ons r egar di ng “vani s hi ng pr emi um s ” of the pol i cy. E qui t abl e f

i l ed a “ N ot i ce of R emoval ” t o f

eder al courton the bas i s of d i ver s i ty j ur i s di ct i on, cl ai m i ng thatB yr d w as frau d u lently j o ined i n ord er t o de fea t fed era l juri sd ict ion
. T h e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt for the N o rth ern D istri ct of M issi ssipp i- D e lta D ivisi o n su b seq u en tl y g ran ted th e T rust’s “M o ti o n to R em an d ” b ase d o n E q u it ab le’s fai lure to d em o n str ate frau d u lent joind er. ¶ 9
. E q u itab le a n d B y rd th e n re n e w e d th e ir “ M o tio n to D is m is s ” in th e c irc u it c o u rt, arg u ing that the T rust’s co m p lai n t w as b arred by th e statute of l im it ati o n s. T h e c ir cu itco u rt 6 g ran ted th a t m o ti o n , en teri n g an “O rde r of D ism issal w ith P rejud ice” o f th e T rust’s
c o m p la in t, f

in d in g th a t th e p o lic y c le a rl y s ta te d th a t th e p re m iu m s w e re p a y a b le “ fo r l if e ,” and that“[ t ] he t i m e f

orf i l i ng any cl ai m ar i s i ng f r om the al l eged r epr es ent at i ons t o t he
c o n tr a ry . . . s ta rt e d to ru n o n th e d a te o f d e liv e ry o f t h e p o lic y in 1 9 8 6 .”

### 6

¶1 0
. O n ap p ea l, the C o u rt o f A p p ea ls d eterm ined that ev en if the circu it co u rt ’s an alys is
w as in erro r, a se p ara te an a ly sis u n d e r i ts i n terpretati o n o f S teph en s v. E q u ita b le L if e A s s urance Societ

y of the U nited States , 8 5 0 S o . 2 d 7 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ), re n d e rs th e sa m e re su lt,
as t he f act s and i s s ues pr es ent ed i n S teph en s a re “ a lm o s t id e n tic a l to th o s e p re s e n te d h e re .” W il bo u rn , 2007 M i s s . A pp. LE X I S 501 a t*8. I n anal yzi ng the “M ot i on t o D i s m i s s ” and the ci r cui tc our t ’ s “ O r derof D i s m i s s al w i th Pr ej udi ce, ” the C our tof A ppeal s l ooked att he exp res s t erm s of the p oli cy, i den t i fyi ng atl eastthree “cl ear and u nam biguou s” point s: [ f ] i r s t , the “Pr emi um s and B enef i t s ” s ect i on s t at es thatthe pr emi um s ar e due annual l y “FO R L I FE
. ” Second, the “O therI m por t antPr ov i s i ons ” s ect i on cl ear l y s t at es thatthe w r i t t en pol i cy s t at ementi s the ent i r e contr act . T hi r d, onl y the Pr es i dentorone of the V i ce Pr es i dent s of

[ E qui t abl e] had the pow er t o m odi f y t he cont r actand s uch modi f i cat i on w as r equi r ed t o be i n a s i gned w r i t i ng. Id
. at*1 1. B ased upo n the “forl i fe” l ang uag e, the C ou rtof A pp eal s concluded that the T rust h ad fail ed to d em o n str ate “ so m e a ffi rm a tiv e a ct or c o n d u ct w as d o n e to p rev en t disco v ery of a cl ai m . . . . ” Id
. a t*12- 13 ( quot i ng Ste phe ns , 850 So. 2d at83). A s such, t he C our tof A ppeal s f

ound thatthe Trus thad f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h a cl ai m of f r audul entconce al m ent , thus th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s w a s n o t to lle d
. See W il bo u rn , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 501 at*13. Fur therm or e, the C our tof A ppeal s s t at ed: i ti s undi s put ed thatthe Trus tw as requir ed t o m ake a n addi t i onal pr emi um paymentbeyond the ei ghtal l egedl y pr om i s ed by B yr d i n J ul y 1993. A s s um i ng th a t ev e ry th in g th a t th e T ru st c laim s is tru e , the T ru st, in a c c o rd a n c e w ith Ste phe ns , w as puton not i ce of a pos s i bl e mi s r epr es ent at i on i n 1993.

### For c laim s that ac cr ued prior to July 1, 1989, Mi ss is sippi CodeAnnotate d Sec ti on 7 

### 15 -1-4 9 imp oseda six-y ear statute o f limitation s. Four jud ges con cur

ring; onejudgeconc urring in part and in res ult ; f our j udges 8 

### dis se nting; and one j udge not parti cipating. 7 Id . at * 1 3 -1 4 . A s s u c h , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d e ter m in e d th a t “w h e th e r th e sta tu te b e g a n to
run i n 1986 and expi r ed i n 1992[ ] orbegan t o run i n 1993 a nd expi r ed i n 1996, the ac t i on 7 i s t i m e- barr ed. ” Id
. at *1 4
. T h ere fore , the C o u rto f A p p ea ls affirm e d the c ir cu itco u rt ’s

“ O rd e r o f D ism iss a l w ith P re ju d ice ” o f th e T ru st’s c o m p lain t. See id
. 8 I S S UE ¶1 1
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: W h e th e r th e c irc u it co u rt e rre d in e n ter in g a n “ O rd e r o f D ism iss a l w ith P re ju d ice ” o f th e T ru st’s c o m p lain t. A N A L Y S IS ¶1 2
. P roc e d u ra lly , th is C o u rt n o tes that the “M o ti o n to D ism iss” o f E q u it ab le an d B y rd al l e ge s tha ti twas b r ou gh tp ur s ua ntt o M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e s o f Ci vi l Pr oc e du r e 9 ( b) and 12( b) ( 6)
. R ul e 9( b) s t at es , i n part , that“[ i ] n al l averm ent s of f r aud orm i s t ake, the ci r cumst ance s cons t i tut i ng f r aud orm i s t ake s hal l be s t at ed w i th part i cul ar i ty. ” M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 9( b)
. R ul e 12( b) ( 6) pr ovi des “ the f ol l ow i ng de f

ens es may atthe opt i on of the pl eade rbe
m a d e b y m o tio n : . . . ( 6 ) F a il u r e to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f c a n b e g ra n te d . . . .” M iss . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ). A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt: [a] m o tio n to d ism iss u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) o f th e M iss is s ip p i R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e r ai s es an i s s ue of l aw , w hi ch i s re vi ew ed undera de novo s t andar d. Co o kv. Br o wn , 909 So. 2d 107 5, 1077- 78 ( M i s s . 2005)
. A R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s f

orf ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m t es t s t he l egal suf f i ci ency of

the c o m p la in t. Id
. at1078 ( ci t i ng L ittle v. Miss. D ep’t of Hu m an S ervs. , 835 So. 2d 9, 11 ( M i s s . 2002))
. T he al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntm us tbe t aken a s true,

### Acc ording to t he “ Moti on to Di sm is s, ” whi letheTrus t “bas es [i ts ] ca seon theli fe 9 

### insurance p olicyandapp lication , [it] did n ot attachthese d ocuments to [its] [c]omplaint.” Th erefore, th e sub

ject po licy w as attachedto th e “Mo tionto D ismiss” as an ex hib it. 8 a n d th e re m u st b e n o se t o f fa c ts th a t w o u ld a llo w th e p lain tiff to p re v a il. R al ph W al ker , I nc. v. G al

lagher , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d 8 9 0 , 8 9 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). . . . T h is C o u rtm u st fi n d th at th ere i s no set o f f ac ts that w o u ld en ti tl e a d efe n d a n t to reli ef u n d er the law in o rde r t o affirm an o rde r gra n ti n g the d ism issal of a c la im o n a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n . Id
. ( ci t i ng L ow e v. L ow ndes Count y B ldg. In sp ec tio n D ep ’t , 7 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). R os e v. Tullos , 2 0 0 8 M is s . L E X IS 5 7 3 a t * 4 -5 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). See al s o State v. D am

peer , 744 So. 2d 754, 756 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng W eeks v. T hom as , 6 6 2 S o . 2 d 5 8 1 , 5 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 )) ( “i n or dert o s ur vi ve a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on, the compl ai ntne ed onl y s t at e a s etof f act s t hat
w il l al low the p lai n ti ff ‘ so m e re li ef in c o u rt . ’”). ¶ 1 3
. H o w e v e r, M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b ) fu rth e r sta tes th a t: [ i ] f , on a mot i on t o di s m i s s f orf ai l ur e of the pl eadi ng t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w h ic h re lie f c a n b e g ra n te d , m at t ers out s i de the pl eadi ngar e pr es ent ed t o and n o t exc lud ed b y the c o u rt , the m o tio n s h all b e treated as o n e fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t a n d d is p o s e d o f a s p ro v id e d in R u le 5 6 , and al lpar t i es s hal lbe gi ven r eas onabl e oppor t uni t

y to pr es ent

al lm at er i alm ade per t i nent t o s uc h a m ot i on by Rul e 56 ; how ever , i f

on s uch a mot i on m att er s out s i de the pl eadi ngs ar e not p re se n ted , an d if th e m o tio n is g ra n ted , lea v e to a m e n d sh a ll b e g ra n ted in ac co rda n ce w ith R u le 15 (a). M is s . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 12( c) ( s i m i l arl anguage
r egar di ng a “M ot i on f

orJudgmenton the P l eadi ngs ”)
. T he ci r cui tcourtcl ear l y cons i der ed “m att ers o u tsi d e the p lead ing ” in find ing th at “[ t] h e p o li cy clearly stat es tha t prem ium s are p ay ab le for ‘l if

e[, ] ’” b u t did n o t trea t th e “ M o ti o n to D ism iss ” a s a m o ti o n for su m m ary 9 j udgm enti n acc or dance w i th R ul e 12( b)
. N onethel es s , thi s C our thas s t at ed that“[ t ] he
m o ti o n for sum m ary j u d g m en t is the fu n cti o n al eq u ivalen t o f th e R u le 12 (b)(6 ) m o tio n to

### 9

di s m i s s , onl y i toccur s ata subs equentst age of t he pr ocee di ngs . ” Jones v. R egency T oyota, I nc. , 798 So. 2d 474, 475 ( M i s s . 2001) ( quot i ng G r ay v. B aker , 4 85 S o. 2 d 30 6, 3 07 (M i ss. 1 9 8 6 )). In fa c t: [ a] pa r ty a gai ns tw hom a mot i on t o di s m i s s underM
. R
. C
. P. 12( b) ( 6) has been f i l ed i s ther eby on ac tual not i ce thatthe mot i on t o di s m i s s m ay be tr eat ed as a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t i f the condit i ons pr es cr i bed i n [ Mis s is s i ppi R ul e of C i vi lProc edur e 12(

b) ] ar ef ound, i ncl udi ng the oppor t uni t y to pr es ent any r el evant

m at er i al
. Jones , 798 So. 2d at475 ( ci t i ng W a lto n v. B o u rg e o is , 5 1 2 S o . 2 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). H e re , h o w e v e r, th e m o tio n w a s n o t “ d is p o s e d o f a s p ro v id e d in R u le 5 6 ,”
norw er e “a l l part i es . . . gi ven r eas onabl e oppor tuni ty t o pre s ental l m at er i al m ade pe r t i nent t o s uch a m ot i on by R ul e 56 .
. . . ” M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 12( b)
. Fur therm or e, thi s C our thas s t at ed that“[ w ] her e a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on i s convert ed i nt o one f ors um m ary j ud gm ent, . . . t he trial c o u rt m ustgi ve t en days ’ not i ce f or such a hear i ng . . . . ” Jones , 798 So. 2d at476 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ( “[ t ] he mot i on s hal l be s erved atl eas tt en days bef or e the t i m e f

i xed f orthe hea r i ng. ”)
. “The r equi r ement s of R ul e 56( c) , f

arf r om bei ng a
m er e ext ens i on of

ourl i ber al pr ocedur e exa l t i ng s ubs t ance overf orm, r e pr e s e nt s a pr ocedur al
s a fe g u a rd to p re v e n t th e u n ju s t d e p ri v a tio n o f a litig a n t’ s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to a ju ry tr ia l.” Jones , 798 So. 2d at476 ( quot i ng P al m erv. B iloxiR eg’l

Med. Ctr. , I

nc. , 649 S o. 2d 179, 1 8 2 -8 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 )). A c c o rd in g ly , this C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t th e c irc u it co u rt e rre d in
m er el y ent er i ng an “O r derof D i s m i s s al w i th Pr ej udi ce” af t ercons i der i ng “mat t er s out s i de the pl eadi ng, ” butf

ai l i ng t o pr oper l y convertthe R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on i nt o a R ul e 56 mot i on fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t v ia p ro p e r n o tic e o f s a id h e a ri n g , s ee M i ss. R
. C i v. P. 56( c) , ort he “r eas onabl e opportuni ty t o pr es ental l m at er i al m ade pe r t i nentt o s uch a mot i on by R ul e 56

### 10

. . . . ” M iss. R
. C iv. P
. 12 (b). T h ere fore , th e circu itco u rt ’s “O rde r of D ism issa l w ith P re ju d ice ” is v a c a ted a n d th is c a se is re m a n d e d fo r fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on. ¶1 4. A ddi t i onal l y, t hi s C our tw oul d be r emi s s i f i tf a i l e d t o i ncl ude t he f

ol l ow i ng
s ubs t ant i ve di s cus s i on. T hi s anal ys i s i s pert i nentt o the ci rcui tcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on on
r emand, i ns of

aras i taddr es s es the expa ns i ve ana l ys i s of the C our tof

A ppeal s r egar di ng t he po l i cy, the represent at i on s of B yrd and E qu i t able, and the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. ¶15. I ni t i al l y, thi s C our tques t i ons the cl earand unambi guous natur e of the “f orl i f e” pol i cy l anguage upon w hi ch bot h the ci r cui tcourtand C our tof A ppeal s r el i ed. T he pol i cy pr ovi des

“ [p ]re m iu m s p a y a b le fo r lif e . P ol i cy par t i ci

pat es i n di vi dends .” (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). A s to “H ow D i vi dends A r e Pai d, ” the pol i cy pr ovi des “[ w ] e w i l l d et erm i ne yourpol i cy’ s s har e, i f any, of ourdi vi s i bl e s urpl us annual l y. I tw i l l be paya bl e as a di vi dend atthe end of eac h pol i cy yeari f

the pol i cy i s then i n ef

f ectw i th al l pr emi um s dul y pai d. ” R egar di ng “D i vi dend O pt i ons , ” the pol i cy s t at es t hatthe pol i cyhol derm ay choos e t o us e di vi dends “t o hel p pay any pr emi um t hen due. ” Fur therm or e, underthe “A ddi t i onal D i vi dend O pt i on R i der , ” the po l i cy p rovi des: [w ]hile th is o p tio n is in e ffe c t, no o th e r d iv id e n d o p tio n in th e p o licy w ill a p p ly and the pr emi um s underthe pol i cy w i l l be due a nnual l y. O n eac h pol i cy anni ver s ary: 1. T he curr entdi vi dend w i l l be us ed t o pay the annua l pr emi um t hen due; then

### “Div iden d cred its” are defin ed in the po licy as “the sum of d ivid endaccumu lation s, 10 

### the cas h value of

divi dend a dditions , and any di vide nd that ha s not bee n appl ie d under

an opti on.”The pol ic y adds that “ [y] ou may usedivi dend c re dit s t oward mak ing the pol ic y paid -up for its F ace Amo unt. . . . No furth er premiums are du e ona paid -up po licy.” In i ts “Pe ti ti on for Wri t of Cer ti orari ,”the Trus t a ss erts that i t “ spe ci fi ca lly exe rc is ed 11 

### this o ptio n to hav e its po licy d ivid end s payits annual p remium.” Furthermo re, in assessin g th is ambig uity , this C ourt no tes that “amb igu ou s terms 12 

### in an ins urancecontra ct

ar e t o be c onstrue d mos t s trongly a gainst the pr epare r, theins urance com pany. ” U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v . Omni bank , 812 So. 2d 196, 198 ( Mis s. 2002). 11 2. T o t he ext entnece s s ary, d i vi dend cr edi t s [ ] w i l l be us ed t o hel p pay the 10 bal ance of

thatpr emi um ; and then 3
. An y e x c e s s o f

th a tp r e mi u m o v e rt h e s u m o f th e a mo u n t s o b t a i n e d i n i t e ms 1 a nd 2 above w i l l be pa i d by pol i cy l oan t o the ext entthatthe pol i cy’ s l oan v a lu e is th e n su ffic ien t. A ny b al ance of

a pr emi um notpai d i n acc or dance w i th the pr ece di ng par agr aph w i l l then be due i n cas h. A s the “[ p] oli cy par t i ci pat es i n di vi dends [ , ] ” an a m bi gui ty exi s t s noti n the paymentof p re m iu m s “ fo r life ,” b u t in th e so u rc e o f su c h p a y m e n t. ¶1 6
. If eith er the refere n ce d “D ivide n d O p ti o n ” o r th e “ A d d it ion al D ivide nd O pti o n R ider” i s appl i cabl e t o t he T rus t , then genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fa ctexi s tas t o w hetherther e w as any i nher entconf

l i ctbetw een the pol i cy and the al l eged r epr es ent at i ons r egar di ng the s our ce of pre m i um paym ent s . U nderei therthe r ef er ence d “D i vi dend O pt i on” orthe “A ddi t i onal 11 D i vi dend O pt i on R i der , ” i ti s concei vab l e t hataf t erei ghtout - of

- pocketannual pr emi um p a y m e n ts, th e p o licy w o u ld b e c o m e se lf-su sta in in g , su c h tha t th e fu tu re p re m iu m p a y m e n ts
w oul d “vani s h. ” A s J udge C han dlern ot ed i n hi s di s s ent , “[ u] nl i ke Ste phe ns , t he 12
r epres ent at i on her e conc erned how , notw hether , f ur therpr emi um s w er e t o be pai d. T he f al s i ty of thatr epr es ent at i on w oul d nothave be en appa r entf r om r eadi ng the i ns ur ance

### Acc ording to JudgeChandl er , “ Byrd’ s promi sethat t he pol ic y’s per for

mancewas 13 

### suc h that t

he pr em ium s woul d van ish in e ight years was not s ubst antia lly contra dic te d by Equit abl e’ s require me nt of a s ingl e, final, out- of- pocke t prem ium paym ent .” Wilb ou rn , 2007 Mis s. App. LEXI S 501 at *24 (Chandle r, J. , di ss enting)
. “Cons umm ation”is def

ine d as “[ t] he a ct

of cons umm ating: ful fi llme nt. ” Webst er ’s 14 

### IINew Col le ge Di ctionary 242 ( 3d ed. 2001). 12 c o n tr a c t w h ic h in fa c t p ro v id e d th a t p re m iu m s c o u ld b e p a id fr o m th e p o lic y p ro c e e d s .” W il bo u rn , 2 0 0 7 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 5 0 1 at *2 1 (C h an d ler, J. , d issen ti n g ). ¶17
. A dd i t i on al l y, a gen uine i ssue of m at eri al factm ay exis tregardi ng w hetherthe exp res s l anguage of

the pol i cy w as i ncons i s t entw i th B yr d’ s 1993 s t at ementthatone addi t i onal pr emi um paymentw as neede d, butthatthe pr emi um s w oul d t her eaf t ervani s h. T he pol i cy pr ovi des that“[ t ] hef

i rs tpr em i um i s $28, 600. 00 .
. . . ” (Em phas i s added)
. A s s um i ng t hatt he $ 2 8 ,6 0 0 p a y m e n t in 1 9 8 6 co n stitu ted o n ly the “firs t pr e m iu m ” p a y m e n t, th e n the e ig h th o u tof
- pocketannual pr emi um paymentw oul d have be en made i n 1993. W hil e the Trus tw as
un der t he i m pr es s i on thatthe $28, 600 payments at i s f i ed tw o of

the ei ghtout - of

- pocket pr emi um payment s , i ti s uncl eari f thatw as an ac tual re pr es ent at i on m ade by B yr d, i n di r ect conf l i ctw i th the pol i cy pr ovi s i on. I f not , then the Trus tw oul d notha ve bee n puton not i ce of a mi s r epr es ent at i on, as no m i s r epr es ent at i on w oul d have e xi s t ed. 13 ¶18
. F i nall y, a fr aud cl ai m “accrues up on the com plet i on of the sal e i nd uced by such fal se
re p re s e n ta tio n , orupon the cons um m at i on [ ] of the f r aud
. . . . ” Ste

phe ns , 850 So. 2d at82 14 ( quot i ng D unn v. D e nt , 169 M i s s . 574, 1 53 S o. 798 (1934) ) ( emphasi s added)
. A s not ed supra , genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

actm ay ex i stregar ding w hetherthe all eged repr esent at i ons
r egar di ng the s our ce of

pr emi um pa ym ent s w er e i ncons i s t entw i th the pol i cy. Fur therm or e, i n the abs ence of

a br eac h of

the pol i cy, orproof of an anti ci pat ory br eac h, how coul d t he

### Mo reov er, un der aninstal lm ent -t ype pol ic y, t

he c oll ec ti on of e ac h $14,300 premium 15 

### beyond that whi ch wa s a gre ed upon woul d cons umm at e a separat e and dis tinct

ac t of mi srepr es ent ation, shoul d thefa ct -f inde r c onclude that

any m is repre se ntati on exi st ed. 13 T rus tdi vi ne thata f

r aud cl ai m exi s t ed? The Trus tas s ert s the f ol l ow i ng: i n 1994 a nd 1995, bas ed upon B yr d’ s r epr es ent at i ons , the Trus tm ade the pr emi um payment s and then r ece i ved f ul l r ei m bur s ementf

r om E qui t abl e; i n 1996 and 1997, the Trus tr ece i ved addi t i onal “N ot i ces of Paym entD ue” f

r om E qui t abl e, i gnor ed both bas ed upon B yr d’ s r epr esent at i ons , and no f ur theract i on w as t aken by E qui t abl e; f orthe nextf

i ve yea r s , the Trus tr ece i ved no “N ot i ces
o f P a y m e n t D u e .” If

th e se a ss e rtio n s a re p ro v e n , h o w w o u ld th e T ru st h a v e k n o w n to file
s ui ti f i t : ( 1) w as t ol d by Byrd thatthe “N ot i ces of Paym entD ue” f

r om 1994 thr ough 1997
w e re m ista k e n ; (2 ) re c e iv e d f u ll re fu n d o r re tu rn o f th e 1 9 9 4 a n d 1 9 9 5 p re m iu m p a y m e n ts f r om E qui t abl e; (3) re cei ved “N ot i ces of Paym entD ue” i n 1996 and 1997, butno s ubs equent demand f

orpaymentf

r om E qui t abl e; and ( 4) r ece i ved no “N ot i ces of PaymentD ue” f r om E qui t abl e af

t erthe 1997 not i ce unt i l A ugus t2002? Equi t abl e’ s purpor t ed err or s of
comm i s s i on ( r ef

unded orr eturned pr emi um paymentchec ks i n 1994 and 1995) and omi s s i on ( “N ot i ces of

P aym ent D ue” i n 1996 and 1997 buti nact i on, and the abs ence of “N ot i ces of Paym entD ue” a f

t erthe 1997 not i ce unt i l A ugus t2002) may w el l cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of
m at er i al f

actas t o w hetherany al l eged f r aud w as “cons um m at ed” be f or e A ugus t2002. 15 ¶19. T hi s opi ni on s houl d notbe r ead as a re tr eatfr om t he pr i nci pl e that , abs ent exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s , a f

r aud cl ai m m ay notbe pr edi cat ed on f al s e verbal r epr es ent at i ons w hi ch
c o n tr a d ic t p ro v is io n s o f a w ri tte n c o n tr a c t. See B a lla rdv. Co m m e rc ia l B a n ko f D eK a lb , 2008 M i s s . L E X I S 500 at*15 ( M i s s . O ct ober9, 2008) ( “[ a] s a mat t erof l aw , one may not

### 14

r eas onabl y r el y on ora l re pr es ent at i ons , w hethernegl i gent l y or f r audul ent l y m ade .
. . , w hi ch
c o n tr a d ic t th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e d o c u m e n ts” ); G odf r ey, B as s et

t & Kuyk en da l

l A rchitect

s, L td. v. Huntington L um berCo. , I nc. , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 1 ) (“ a p e rso n is
u n d er a n o b li g ati o n to rea d a c o n tr ac t be fore sign ing it , a n d w il l no t as a g en era l ru le be h ea rd t o compl ai n of

an or al m i s r epr es ent at i on the err or of w hi ch w oul d have be en di s cl os ed by
r eadi ng t he contr act ”)
. I n t he ca s e s ub j udi ce , the pol i cy pr ovi s i ons m ay notnece s s ar i l y have putthe Trus ton not i ce thatthe verbal r epr es ent at i ons of B yr d w er e f

al s e i n l i ghtof E q u itab le’ s re fu n d o r re tu rn o f its p re m iu m p a y m e n ts. T h e p o licy lan g u a g e , tog e th e r w ith B y rd ’s r e p re se n tatio n s a n d E q u itab le’ s a c tio n s , rea so n a b ly c o u ld h a v e b e e n in terp re ted to
m e a n tha t th e p o licy h a d b e c o m e se lf-su sta in in g su c h th a t fu tu re p re m iu m p a y m e n ts w o u ld

“ v a n is h .” CO NC L US I ON ¶20
. B ased up on the afor em enti on ed analysi s, this C ou rt reve rses the C ou rt of A pp eal s’ d e c isio n a ffirm in g th e C irc u it C o u rt o f Q u itm a n C o u n ty ’s “ O rd e r o f D is m iss a l w ith Pr ej udi ce, ” and r emands f orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 2 1
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., C A R L S O N , D I C K I N S O N A N D L A M A R , J J ., CONCUR. EA S LE Y, J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. GRAVE S , J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON, J O I N E D B Y D I A Z , P .J . GR AVES, J UST I CE, CONCURRI NG I N P ART AND DI S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶ 2 2
. T h e m a

jo rity o f th is C o u rt fin d s th a t th is m a tter sh o u ld b e re v e rse d a n d re m a n d e d to th e c irc u it co u rt fo r a d e ter m in a tio n o f w h e th e r g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t ex ist. W h ile

### 15

I agr ee thatthi s m att ers houl d be r ever s ed and r em and ed, I w oul d f i nd thati ts houl d be
r emanded f

ortr i al and notf

ora s um m ary j udgm enthear i ng. T he m aj ori t y opi ni on acknow l edges the exi s t ence of genui ne i ssues of m at er i al f act . R atherthan r emand t he
m att ert o the t ri al co urtforconver s i on of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b)
m ot i on t o di s m i s s i nt o one f ors um m ary j udgm entpur s uantt o R ul e 56( c) , I w oul d f i nd t hat th is C o u rt sh o u ld c o n v e rt th e m o tio n , ap p ly its fin d in g s o f g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t,
re v e rse th is m a tter, a n d re m a n d it fo r tria l. T h e re fo re , I co n c u r in p a rt a n d d iss e n t in p a rt. ¶ 2 3
. T h e m a

jo rity is c a re fu l to p o in t o u t th a t g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t “m a y ” e x ist. A l though the maj or i ty us es the w or d “may, ” the r ecor d i n thi s m att eri ndi cat es thatgenui ne iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t do ex ist
. M o reo v er, th e m ajority cit es c ertain issue s w h ere there “may” exi s tgenui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

actand di s cus s es s peci fi c assert i ons thatm ay be pr oven. T he mer e acknow l edgmentthatther e ar e thes e genui ne i s s ues w hi ch ar e unr es ol ved is an ac k n o w ledg m en t th at th ere are g en u ine issu es w h ich a re in d ispu te. T h e a p p rop ri a te
v e h icle fo r p ro v in g a ss e rtio n s o r re so lv in g d isp u ted iss u e s is a trial. ¶24. A s I w oul d f

i nd, ba s ed on the r ecor d i n thi s m att er , thatgenui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

act
ex ist , this m att er sh o u ld b e re v erse d a n d re m a n d ed for tri al. Itis ax iom ati c tha t sum m ary ju d g m e n t s h o u ld b e d e n ie d w h e re th e re a re g e n u in e i s s u e s o f m a te ri a l f

a c t. See N

ew el l v. H inton , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 7 , 1 0 4 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ). See al s o M iss. R
. C iv. P. 56 (c). M o reo v er, it d o e s n o t se rv e th e in ter e st o f ju d icia l ec o n o m y to re q u ire a h e a rin g o n a m a tter w h e re th is C our thas al r eady a cknow l edged f i ndi ngs . Fur ther , i nas m uch as thi s C our ti s r ever s i ng t he C our tof A ppeal s , I w oul d f

i nd i tunnece s s ary f

orthe ci r cui tcourtbel ow to exam i ne the

### 16

“expa ns i ve ana l ys i s ” of the C our tof

A ppeal s deci s i on. T her ef or e, I concuri n partand d iss e n t in p a rt. DI AZ , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.