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 6 - I A- 0 0 0 0 5 - S CT EDDI E OAKS , BRENDA OAKS

, OAKS I NSU RAN CE A GENC Y, I

NC . AN D D ESOTO I NSURA NCE, I

NC.
v. DON ALD E. S

ELL ERS
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 12/ 2005 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. R O B E R T P
. C H A M B E R L IN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : L AR A A. CO L E M AN DA VI D A
. BA RFI ELD ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: CH AR LES ABBO TT NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - I NSURANCE D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 04/ 12/ 2007 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. EAS LEY, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶1
. T h is is a n interl o cu tory ap p ea l co n ce rnin g w h ethe r th e C irc u it C o u rt o f D e S o to C o u n ty e rre d b y d e n y in g a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. O n Ja n u a ry 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , D o n a ld Sel l er s ( Sel l er s ) f

i l ed s ui tagai ns tD eSot o Ins ur ance , I nc. (D eSot o I ns ur ance ) , E ddi e O aks (O a k s), B re n d a O a k s (B re n d a ), an d O a k s In su ra n c e C o m p a n y (O a k s In su ra n c e ), co llec tiv e ly “the D ef endant s ” i n the C i r cui tC our tof D eSot o C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi
. S el l er s al l eged that

### 2

the D ef endant s , as hi s i ns ur ance agent s , negl i gent l y br eac hed the dut i es ow ed t o him by f ai l i ng t o pr ocur e an umbr el l a i ns ur ance pol i cy, f orbus i nes s and per sonal l i abi l i ty, i n t he
a m o u n t of $ 1 m il li o n ; and b y n eg li g en tl y m isr ep rese n ti n g to S ell ers tha t he h ad co m p lete
cover age i ncl udi ng per s onal , um br el l a l i abi l i ty cover age i n t he am ountof $1 m i l l i on. T he D ef endant s f i l ed a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm entcl ai m i ng thatSel l er s ’ s cl ai m w as barr ed by the s t at ute of l i m i t at i ons . T he tr i al courtconduct ed a he ar i ng and l at erdeni ed the D ef endant s ’ m ot i on f

orsumm ary j udgm ent . T her eaf t er , t he D ef

endant s fi l ed a pet i t i on f or i nt er l ocut ory appea l w i th t hi s C our t . O n February 24, 2006 , thi s C our tgr ant ed the D e fe n d a n ts’p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. FACTS ¶ 2
. In Ju ly 1 9 9 3 , S e llers so u g h t co m p lete ins u ra n c e co v e ra g e , inc lu d in g c o v e ra g e fo r h is uni ncorpor at ed bus i nes s , D onni e’ s A m oco, l ocat ed i n D eSot o C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , f r om t he D e fe n d an t’ s. O ak s an d B ren d a, ag en ts f o r D eS o to In su ran ce , o b tai n ed a b u sine ss li ab il ity pol i cy f or$1 m i l l i on and an umbr el l a i ns urance p ol i cy f orup t o $1 m i l l i on. T he pol i ci es
w ere issue d an d u n d erw ri tt en b y A m erican S tat es In su ran ce C o m p an y (A m erican S tat es). T he umbre l l a i ns ur ance pol i cy pr ovi ded cove r age f orbusi nes s l i abi l i ty onl y and notper s onal l i abil i ty. T he sam e po l i cy w as r enew ed b y p aym ent of the p rem i um s. ¶ 3
. O n S e p tem b e r 2 8 , 1 9 9 6 , E d d ie S e llers , S e llers ’s s o n , w a s in v o lv e d in a m o to r v e h icle col l i s i on i n Te nn e s s e e w hi l e dr i vi ng Se l l e r s ’ s c a r . Sha ne Thurman a nd hi s mi no rs on, D al t on, w er e tr avel i ng i n t he vehi cl e w i th E dd i e. A s a r es ul tof thi s acc i dent , D al t on w as k i l l e d a n d S h a n e s u f

f e r e d s e r i o u s i n

j u r i e s . Ed d i e wa s n o two r k i n g f o rh i s f a th e ra tth e t i me

### 3

of the ac ci dent
. Sel l er s ’ s i ns ur ance pol i cy w as i n f ul l force and eff

ecton the dat e of

t he
a c c id e n t. ¶ 4
. S e llers n o tified th e D e fe n d a n ts o f th e a c c id e n t. S e llers re q u e ste d th a t th e D e fe n d a n ts fi l e a cl ai m w ith A m eri can S t at es und er hi s um brel l a po l i cy. T he D efendan t s f i l ed a loss
n o ti ce an d sen t i t t o A m erican S tates . O n A u g u st 26 , 1 9 9 7 , A m erican S tat es se n t Se ll ers
w r i t t en not i ce de nyi ng hi s cl ai m on the b asi s t hat the umbre l l a pol i cy di d notpr ovi de
co v era g e to S ell ers’s so n sinc e E d d ie w as n o t acti n g in the co u rse a n d sco p e o f S ell ers’s b u sin e ss a t th e tim e o f th e a c c id e n t. ¶5. T her eaf

t er , Sel l er s a nd hi s s on, Eddi e, w er e named as party def endant s i n a T ennes s ee law su itco n ce rnin g the c o ll isi o n . S ell ers’s au tom o b il e ins u ran ce c a rrie r, State F arm I ns ur ance C om pany, def ended hi m i n the Tennes s ee a ct i on bas ed on theor i es of i m put ed l i abi l i ty. I n J anuary 2000, the Tennes s ee c i r cui tcourtdet erm i ned E ddi e t o be l i abl e f orthe
w ron g ful deat h of D al t on and t he i njur i es s uff ered by Sh ane. T he T enn essee ci rcui t cou rt al s o det erm i ned thatSel l er s ha d no i m put ed l i abi l i ty unde rthe bus i nes s purpos e doctr i ne or the Tennes s ee Fami l y Purpos e doctr i ne. ¶6. T he rul i ng of

the T ennes s ee tr i al c our tw as a ppeal ed. O n F ebruary 16 , 20 01 , t he T ennes s ee C our tof A ppeal s handed dow n an opi ni on w hi ch af f i r m ed the tr i al courtrul i ng thatt her e w as no bus i nes s purpos e. H ow ever , the Tennes s ee Courtof A ppeal s r ever s ed the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng as t o i m put ed l i abi l i ty. T he appe l l at e courthel d thatSel l er s w as per s onal l y l i abl e f

ort he i nj ur i es caused by hi s s on’ s negl i gence pur s uantt o the Tennes s ee

### 4

Fam i l y Purpos e doctr i ne. O n O ct ober8, 2001 , the T ennes s ee Supr eme C our tdeni ed
c e rtio ra ri, w h ich m a d e th e T e n n e ss e e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’s ru lin g fin a l. ¶ 7
. O n Ja n u a ry 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , fo llo w in g the d e n ia l o f w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri , S e lle rs filed su it
a g a in st th e D e fe n d a n ts fo r fa ilu re to p ro c u re th e re q u e ste d in su ra n c e a n d fa ilu re to adequa t el y expl ai n the cove r age. A f t erthe tr i al courtdeni ed the D ef endant s ’ m ot i on f

or
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e b a sis o f th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, th e D e fe n d a n ts file d th e ir p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. T h is C o u rt g ra n ted in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l a n d th e D e fe n d a n ts
no w rai se the fol l ow i ng i ssue : w h etherthe tr i al cou rterr ed b y d eny i ng the D efendan t s’
m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entbas ed on the expi r at i on of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons pur s uant to M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1-4 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ). DI S CU S S I ON ¶8
. T h is C o u rt ap p li es a de n o v o stan d ard o f rev iew o n ap p ea l from a gra n t o f sum m ary ju d g m e n t b y th e tr ia l c o u rt . R u ssel l v. O rr , 7 0 0 S o . 2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); R i chm ond v. B enchm ark Constr. Cor p. , 6 9 2 S o . 2 d 6 0 , 6 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); N or ther n E lec. Co. v. P hil li ps , 6 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). R u le 56 (c) o f th e M issi ssipp i R u les of C ivil P roc ed u re provides that s um m ary j ud gm ent s hall be grant ed by a courti f " the p l eadings, dep osi t i on s,
ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es and adm i s s i ons on f i l e, t ogetherw i th af

f i davi t s , i f

any, show t hat ther e is no genui ne iss ue as t o any m at er i alf act and thatthe m ovi ng par t y is ent i t l ed to a j udgm ent

as a m at t erof

law . M
. R
. C
. P. 56 ( c) ( emphasi s a dded)
. T he m ovi ng party has the bur den of

demonstr at i ng thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

act , w hi l e the non- m ovi ng p a rt y sh o u ld b e g iv e n th e b e n e fi t o f e v e ry re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Tu c k e r v . H in d s C o u n ty , 558

### 5

So. 2d 869, 872 ( M i s s . 1990)
. “I s s ues of f acts uf f i ci entt o r equi r e deni al of a mot i on f

or
s um m ary j udgm entobvi ous l y ar e pr es entw her e one pa r ty s w ear s t o one ver s i on of the mat t er i n i s s ue and a nothers ays the oppos i t e. ” Id
. In Sim m ons v. Thomps on Mach. of Mis s . , I nc. , 631 So. 2d 798, 801 ( M i s s . 1994) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng S h a w v. B u rch field , 4 81 So. 2d 247, 252 ( M i s s . 1985) ) , thi s C our thel d: O f i m por t ance her e i s t he l anguage of the rul e author i zi ng s um m ary j udgm ent ' w h ere there is no g en u ine issu e o f m at er i alf a c t . ' T he pr es ence of

f act is s ues in t he r e c or d do e s no t

pe rs e e ntitle a p ar t

y to a v oid s um m ar

y j udgm e nt

. The cour t m ust be convinced t

hat the f actual is s ue is a m ater ial

one, one that m atte rs in an o utc om e de te r m inati v e s e ns e . . . the e xi s te nc e of a hundre d c onte s te d i

s s ue s of f ac t wil l not thwar t s um m ar y j udgm e nt

wher e the r e is no g e n u in e disp u te r e

g a rdin gth e m a ter ia l issu e s o f fa c t. T h e ev id e n c e m u st b e v iew e d in th e li g h t m o st fa v o ra b le to the n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . See N or t her n E lect

r i c Co. , 6 6 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 8 1 ; R u ss e ll , 7 0 0 S o . 2 d a t 6 2 2 ; Ri c hm ond , 692 So. 2 d a t 6 1 ; S im m o n s, 6 3 1 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 2 ; Tucker , 558 So. 2d at872. ¶9. T o avoi d summ ary j udgm ent , t he non- m ovi ng party m us tes t abl i s h a genui ne i s s ue of
m a te ri a l fa c t w ith in th e m e a n s a llo w a b le u n d e r t h e R u le
. Ri c hm ond , 692 So. 2d at61 ( ci t i ng Lyle v. Mladini c h, 584 So. 2d 397, 398 ( M i s s . 1991) )
. "I f a ny tr i abl e i s s ues of

f actexi s t , t he l ow ercourt ' s deci s i on t o gr ants um m ary j udgm entw i l l be r ever s ed. O therw i s e the dec i s i on i s af f i r m ed. ” Ri c hm ond , 692 So. 2d at61. ¶10
. T he i ssue before this C ou rt i s w hether S el l ers i s barr ed by the st atue of li m i t at i on s. T h e re is n o d isp u te b e tw e e n th e p a rties th a t M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -4 9 is a p p lica b le in th is
cas e. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 49( 1) pr ovi des that“[ a] l l act i ons f orw hi ch no otherper i od

### 6

of l i m i t at i on i s pr es cr i bed s hal l be com m en ced w i thi n t h ree ( 3) years nex t aft er t h e cau se of s uch act i on accrued , an d n o t aft er.” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶11. T he i s s ue i n thi s cas e ar i s es f r om eac h party’ s i nt erpret at i on of w hen the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons began t o run. Sel l er s f i l ed s ui ton Janua ry 13, 2003. T he D ef endant s ar gue that t he st atut e of

l i mi t a t i on s be ga n t o run on A ug us t26 , 19 97 , the da t e tha tA mer i c a n St a t es deni ed Sel l er s ’ s cl ai m . A ccor di ng t o the D ef endant s , Sel l er s ’ s cl ai m w as f i l ed more than f

i ve y e a r s a f t e rd e n i a l o f

th e c l a i m. ¶12. O n the other han d, S el l ers ar gues that the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons began t o run on t he d a te o f actuali njury . Se l l e r s a gu e s tha tthe d a t e o f a c tua l i nj ury w a s Fe brua ry 16, 2001,
w h en the T enn essee C ou rtof A pp eal s i m pu t ed li abil i ty to Sell ers . T heref ore, S el lers cont ends thathe f

i l ed w i thi n t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i on, w hi ch w as l es s than thr ee ye ar s af t er the dat e of

the Tennes s ee appel l at e dec i s i on. ¶13. T he tr i al courtand Sel l er s r el y heavi l y on O w ens -I l linois, I nc. v. E dw ar ds , 573 So. 2d 704, 706 ( M i s s . 1990) , t o s uppor tthe pr opos i t i on thatSel l er s had no actual damages and had no tm etthe elem ents of a t ortun t i l the T enn essee courti m po sed l i abil i ty o n S el l ers . B o th th e trial c o u rt a n d S e llers a re c o rre c t th a t O w e n s-I llin o is st ands forthe l egal t heory t hat “[ a] caus e of

act i on acc rues onl y w hen i tcomes i nt o e xi s t ence a s a n e nf or cea bl e cl ai m ; that is, w h en the righ t t o su e b ec o m es v ested , ” a n d th e the o ry th at an injury h as to h ap p en b efo re
a to rt is c o n s id e re d to c o m p le te . O w e n s-I llin o is , 5 7 3 S o . 2 d a t 7 0 6 -7 0 7 . H o w e v e r, O w en sIllin o is w as a per s onal i nj ury cas e conc erni ng pr oduct s l i abi l i ty and negl i gence i nvol vi ng

### 7

l at entdi s eas e i s s ues . T hi s C our ti n O w e n s-I llin o is m ade cl ear that the i ssue of w hen a cause
o f a c tio n a c c ru e s w a s c o n s id e re d in th e c o n te x t o f l a te n t in ju ry o r d is e a s e . Id
. at706. ¶ 1 4
. T h e D e fe n d a n ts a rg u e th a t Y oung v. Souther n Far m B ure au L i f e I nsur ance , 592 So. 2d 103 ( M i s s . 1991) , i s a ppl i cabl e t o thi s cas e. I n Y oung , the p lai n ti ff sue d S o u thern F arm B u re a u o n a b a d fa ith c la im fo r b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t. Y oung , 5 9 2 S o . 2 d at 10 7
. T h is C o u rt
cons i der ed w hen the ac t i on acc rued f orthe i ns ur ance company’ s al l eged w r ongf ul r ef us al to p a y l if

e in s u ra n c e b e n e fi ts to Y o u n g . Id
. Thi s Courth e l d tha tthe s i x- ye a rs t a tut e of l i m i t at i ons pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 49, i n ef f ectatthe t i m e of

the Y oungcas e, di d notbegi n t o run unt i l Y oung r ece i ved not i f i cat i on f r om Southern Farm Bure au denyi ng p a y m e n t o f t h e a c c id e n ta l d e a th b e n e fi ts . Id
. ¶15. W e f

i nd t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed i n i t s r el i ance on O w e n s-I llin o is
. T he tr i al court and Sel l er s couch t he i s s ue of t he st atut e of

l i m i t at i ons i n t erm s of damage and i nj ury acc rui ng atthe t i m e the Tennes s ee c our ti m pos ed l i abi l i ty on Sel l er s . T he D ef endant s couch the i s s ue of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons i n t erm s of damage and i nj ury actual l y acc rui ng w hen A m er i can S ta te s d e n ie d S e lle rs c la im . A s s ta te d a b o v e , O w e n s-I llin o is conce rned the acc rual of l at ent di s eas e. I n Y

oung , a bad f

ai th cas e, thi s C our thel d thatthe s t atut e of li m i t at i ons began
ru n n in g o n a n in s u ra n c e c la im fr o m th e re c e ip t o f w ri tte n n o tic e d e n y in g th e c la im
. Y oung , 5 9 2 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 7 . T h is c a se c o n c e rn s a m isre p re se n tatio n o f th e p o licy te rm s a n d fa ilu re to i nform S el l ers of the p oli cy term s. ¶16. I n Car terv. Ci ti

grou p, I nc. , 938 So. 2d 809, 817 ( M i s s . 2006) , thi s C our t hel d that “t her e i s a thr e e - ye a rs t a tut e o f l i mi t a t i on s f

orc l a i ms of

b r e a c h of

a f i du c i a r y dut y,

### 8

m i s r epr es ent at i on, and cons pi r acy. ” I n Car ter , thi s C our tal s o anal yzed A n dru s v . E lli s , 887 So. 2d 175 ( M i ss. 2 004), w hi ch addr es s ed the i s s ues of negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on and f r audul entm i s r epr es ent at i on and conc eal m ent. (Sel l er s m ade no c l ai m s f orf r audul ent
m i s r epr es ent at i on orconce al m enti n thi s cas e. ) T hi s C our thel d t hatthe pl ai nt i f f s had not i ce of the t erm s of

the contr actand the cr edi ti ns ur ance a nd the cl ai m s acc rued atthe t i m e of t he
e x e c u tio n o f t h e lo a n a g re e m e n ts . Andr us , 887 So. 2d at180. T hi s C our thel d:

I n Andr us , thi s C our ta ddr es s ed a cl ai m a gai ns ta l enderf orf r audul ent and negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on and fr audul enti nducementi n the pur chas e of c re d it lif e , d is a b ility , a n d p ro p e rt y in s u ra n c e . Andr us , 887 S o. 2d at179. T he Pl ai nt i f f s i n A ndrus al l eged thatthey w er e ei theruna w ar e thatthey pur chas ed i ns ur ance , unaw ar e thatthe i ns ur ance w as notnece s s ary, and the l enderdi d not d is c lo s e th e c o m m is s io n e a rn e d
. Id . T h is C o u rt fo u n d th a t th e p lain tiffs in A ndrus w er e on not i ce of the t erm s of

the contr actand the cr edi ti ns ur ance and a ll c la im s a c c ru e d a t t h e ti m e th e lo a n a g re e m e n ts w e re e x e c u te d
. Id
. a t180. I n s o f aras t he f

r audul entconcea l m entcl ai m , t he C our thel d thatthe A ndrus pl ai nt i f f s had the document s i n thei rpos s es s i on and no on e q ues t i oned any di s cr epanc y betw een the docum ent a nd thei runder s t andi ng of the document te rm s u n til f

ilin g s u it. Id
. at181. Car ter , 938 So. 2d at817. ¶17. I n Ste

phe ns v. Equitab le Li

f e Ass ur. Soc '

y of the U nite d States , 850 So. 2d 78, 82 ( M i s s . 2003) , thi s C our taddr es s ed t he i s s ue of know l edge of

t he cont entof

i ns ur ance pol i ci es by hol di ng: F u rth erm o re, th is C o u rth as h eld th at w h e th e r an insu red rea d s the en ti re i ns ur ance pol i cy, the " know l edge of i t s c ont ent s w oul d be i m put ed t o them as a m at t er of l aw . " Cher r

y v. Anthony , 501 So. 2d 416, 419 ( M i s s . 1987) ( ci t i ng Atlas Roof

ing M f g. Co. , v. Robins on & Jul ie nne, I nc . , 279 So. 2d 625, 629 (M iss . 1 9 7 3 )). T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t: [ A ] w ri t t en co ntr actcann ot be v ari ed b y p ri or oral agreem ents . M or eover , as an evi dent i ary m att er , par ol evi dence t o vary the

### 9 ter m s o f a w ritten c o n tra c t is in a d m is s ib le. F in a lly , a p e rso n is u n d e r a n o b lig a tio n to re a d a c o n tra c t b e fo re sig n in g it, a n d w ill notas a gener al rul e be he ar d t o compl ai n of an or al m i s r epr es ent at i on the err orof w hi ch w oul d have be en di s cl os ed b y rea d in g the co n tra c t. G o d fre y, B a ss e tt & Ku

y k e n da ll A r chitect

s, L td. v. Huntington L um ber& Suppl y Co. , 584 So. 2 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )(cit ati o n s o m itted). L i kew i s e, i n A n dru s v . E lli s , 887 So. 2d 175, 180 ( M i s s . 2004) , thi s C our thel d: I n M i s s i s s i ppi , a per s on i s char ged w i th know i ng t he cont ent s of any document that he execu t es. " Russ e l l v. P e r f orm anc e Toy ota, I

nc . , 826 So. 2d 719, 725 ( M i s s . 2 00 2) ( ci t i ng J

.R . W a tk in s C o . v. R u n n e ls , 252 M i s s . 87, 172 So. 2d 567, 571 ( 1965) (" A per s on cannotavoi d a w r i t t en contr actw hi ch he ha s en tered into o n the g ro u n d that h e d id n o t r ea d ito r ha v e itrea d to h im
. ")). "[A ] p e rso n is u n d e r a n o b lig a tio n to re a d a c o n tra c t b e fo re sig n in g it, a n d w ill notas a gene r al rul e be he ar d to com pl ai n of an or al m i s r epr es ent at i on the err or of w hich w ou l d h ave b een d i scl osed b y readi ng the co ntr act . " G odf r ey, B as s ett & Kuykendal

l A r chitect

s, L td. v. Huntington L um ber& Suppl y Co. , 584 So. 2d 1254, 1257 ( M i s s . 1991)
. A ccor di ngl y, the Pl ai nt i f f s ar e cha r ged w ith n o tice a n d th e re fo re a ll c la im s a c c ru e d a t th e tim e th e lo a n a g re e m e n ts w e re e x e c u te d
. ¶18
. Sel l er s pur chased i nsurance fr om the D efendan t s i n 1993. Sel l er s cont i nued the pol i cy
an d p ri o r t o th e ac cide n t ren ew ed th e p o li cy w ith an effecti v e d ate o f July 3 0 , 1 9 9 6
. S ell ers’s i ns ur ance pol i ci es w er e cl ear l y f orbus i nes s i ns ur ance onl y and notper s onal cover age. O aks
s ubm i t t ed a c l ai m t o A m er i can St at es , atSel l er s ’ s r eques t , af t erthe acci dent
. T he not i ce cl ai m w as a gene r al l i abi l i ty not i ce of oc curr ence cl ai m t o A m er i can St at es . O n A ugus t26, 1997, Sel l er s r ece i ved w r i t t en not i f i cat i on f r om A m er i can St at es thathi s cl ai m w as deni ed beca us e the ac ci dentdi d notoccurw i thi n the cour s e and s cope of Sel l er s ’ s bus i nes s . A f

t er i ni t i at i ng s ui tagai ns tthe D ef endant s cl ai m i ng thatthe D ef endant s fai l ed t o pr ocur e the
r eques t ed per s onal cover age, Sel l er s cont r adi ct ed t hatcl ai m i n hi s re s pons e f orre ques t s f

or

### 10

a d m iss io n a d m itt in g “ [t] o th e b e st o f m y k n o w led g e , in fo rm a tio n a n d b e lief, I d o n o t re c a ll
as ki ng orcons ul t i ng w i th any of the D ef endant s t o quot e per s onal l i nes cover age f orm e or
m y fa m ily fr o m 1 9 9 3 to th e p re s e n t.” ¶19
. N ei ther party d i sput es thatS el l ers pu rchased i nsurance for hi s unincorporat ed bu si ness and an umbr el l a i ns ur ance pol i cy f or$1 m i l l i on i n 1993. T he r ecor d does notr evea l w hether S el l ers rec eive d a cop y o f the p oli ci es. H ow ever, S el l ers ’s res po nse t o the D efendan t s’
m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entr evea l ed thatw hi l e O aks di d notr eca l l s peci f i cal l y r evi ew i ng the pol i cy w i th Sel l er s , ci t i ng t o the pas s age o f m any y ear s , hi s gener al pr act i ce w as t o go
o v e r p o licie s w ith c lien ts. T h e re c o rd a lso d o e s n o t c o n tain a c o m p lete c o p y o f th e u m b re lla pol i cy. H ow ever , the r ecord does cont ai n a copy of the dec l ar at i on page of the pol i cy. T he d e c lar a tio n p a g e in d ica tes tha t itis a re n e w a l d e c lar a tio n a n d th e p o licy p e rio d ra n fro m Ju ly 30, 1996 t o J ul y 30, 1997. T her e w as no di s put e t hatS el l er s ’ s i ns ur ance pol i cy w as i n ef f ect on the dat e of

E ddi e’ s acc i dent
. T he gene r al l i abi l i ty cl ai m f or m s ubm i t t ed t o A m er i can St at es al s o i ndi cat ed thatSel l er s had a pol i cy w i th a J ul y 30, 1996, ef f ect i ve dat e. ¶20. Sel l er s sued O aks, B renda, O aks Insuranc e, and D eSot o I ns ur ance , not A m er i can St at es , i n 2003. H ow ever , Sel l er s boughtthe pol i cy i n 19 93
. W hi l e the r ecor d i s uncl ear
w hetherSel l er s re cei ved a c opy of the pol i cy, he r enew ed the pol i cy i n 1996. E ven gi vi ng Sel l er s the benef

i tof doubtthathe neve rr ece i ved a c opy of hi s i ns ur ance pol i cy, he knew at the l at es ton A ugus t26, 1997, t hathi s cl ai m w as deni ed by A m er i can St at es . T hi s not i f i cat i on
m ade c l earthatei therA m er i can St at es w as m i s t aken i n thei rdeni al of the cl ai m orSel l er s w as mi s t a k e n i n th e ty p e o f

c o v e r a g e th a tth e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s p r o v i d e d t o h i m.

### 11

¶21. T her eaf

t er , A m er i can St at es pa i d no i ns ur ance pr ocee ds on Sel l er s ’ s cl ai m . A m er i can S t at es’ s denial of cove rage dep ri ved S el l ers of l egal r epresent at i on pai d b y A m eri can S t at es. Sel l er s had t o r el y upon hi s a ut om obi l e i ns ur ance c om pany, St at e Far m , t o pr ovi de as s i s t ance i n the aut om obi l e acci dentl aw s ui ti n T ennes s ee. Sel l er s s uf f er ed damage w hen A m er i can St at es deni ed cove r age thatSel l er s bel i eved he w as e nt i t l ed t o have a nd pai d f orvi a i ns ur ance pr emi um s . I n addi t i on, t he deni al of benef i t s by A m er i can St at es pl ace d S el l er s on not i ce that the D ef endant s di d notpr ocur e the type of bus i nes s and per s onal i ns ur ance thathe bel i eved he had pur chas ed. A f

t erA m er i can St at es deni ed cove r age on A ugus t26, 1997, Sel l er s had t o f ace the w r ongf

ul death l aw s ui tw i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of any i ns ur ance cover age unde rt he $1 m i l l i on um brel l a po l i cy is sued b y A m eri can S t at es. ¶2 2
. S ell ers fil ed su itag ains t th e D efe n d an ts on Jan u ary 13 , 20 0 3
. T h e fil ing o cc u rred m o re f i ve yea r s af

t erSel l er s r ece i ved the not i ce of deni al of hi s cl ai m on A ugus t26, 1997. C l ear l y, Sel l er s f i l ed hi s cl ai m out s i de the thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons under M i ss. C ode A nn. § 1 5-1-49, and his cl ai m i s barr ed b y the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. ¶2 3
. In a d d iti o n , S e llers ’s c laim th a t th e D e fe n d an ts f ail ed to ad eq u ately e x p lain h is
c o v e ra g e ter m s is a lso w ith o u t m e rit. S e llers m a d e n o c laim fo r fra u d u len t co n c e a lm e n t. Si nce the r ecor d i s notcl earw hen Sel l er s recei ved a c opy of the 1993 pol i cy orthe 1996
re n e w a l, he w a s n e v e rth e les s p lac e d o n n o tice , a t th e v e ry late st, by the d e n ial o f h is c laim in A u g u st 1 9 9 7 . H e d id n o t c laim th a t h e n e v e r r e c e iv e d th e p o licy . T h is C o u rt h a s re p e a ted ly hel d t hatt he know l edge of an i ns ur ance pol i cy i s i m put ed t o an i ns ur ed r egar dl es s of w hether

### 12

th e in s u re d re a d th e p o lic y . Ste phe ns , 8 5 0 S o . 2 d a t 8 2 , s ee al s o Andr us , 887 So. 2d at180, T o y o ta , 826 So. 2d at725. ¶24. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd that the tr i al court err ed by denyi ng the D ef endant s ’ m ot i on f

or
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. G iv in g S e llers all b e n e fit o f th e d o u b t, h e k n e w in A u g u st 1 9 9 7 tha t h is cl ai m w as deni ed, w hi ch pl ace d hi m on not i ce of a pos s i bl e pr obl em w i th the pr ocur ementand
u n d erstan d ing o f the term s o f h is i n su ran ce p o li cy . S ell ers d id n o t fi le h is claim u n ti l m o re than f i ve yea r s l at er , and w el l out s i de the thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons unde rM i s s . C ode A nn . § 1 5-1-49. W e fi nd that Sel l ers ’s cl ai m s ar e barr ed b y the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. CO NC L US I ON ¶2 5
. F o r th e a b o v e rea so n s, w e fi n d that the three -ye ar statu te o f li m it ati o n s, p u rsua n t t o M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1-4 9 , b eg an to ru n at th e latest on A u g u st 26 , 1 9 9 7 , w h en S ell ers
r ece i ved w r i t t en not i ce thatA m er i can St at es de ni ed hi s i ns ur ance cl ai m . T her ef or e, w e f i nd that the D eS o to C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rterred b y d en y ing the D efe n d an ts’ m o ti o n for su m m ary j udgm ent . W e now r ever s e the j udgm entof the C i r cui tC our tof D eSot o C ounty and r ender j udgm entt o di s m i s s Sel l er s ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tthe D ef endant s , E ddi e O aks , B r enda O aks , O aks In su ra n c e A g e n c y , In c ., a n d D e S o to In su ra n c e , In c ., as th e c laim s a re b a rre d b y th e sta tu te of l i m i t at i on s. ¶ 2 6
. REVERSED AND REND ERED
. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , DI AZ , CA RL S ON AN D G RA VE S , J J . , CO NCUR. DI CK I NSON AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , CO NCU R I N PART A ND I N RESULT. CO BB, P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .