Opinion ID: 1105911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Charles C. Ellis

Text: ¶ 6. Ellis's claim is based on two loans and against Defendants Coleman and Andrus, former employees of Commercial Credit. Both loans were transacted at the Hattiesburg office of Commercial Credit. Ellis contracted for credit life and credit disability insurance in connection to both loans. ¶ 7. The first loan was prepared by Coleman and agreed to on August 1, 1991. Ellis testified that he believed the credit insurance was required but only remembered it being recommended to him or suggested that he needed it. Ellis received copies of the documents resulting from the transaction, which he kept at home. Ellis testified that he read part of the document, but he did not remember reading the insurance disclosure. He testified that had he read the documents he would have known that the insurance was not required. There was no testimony that after receiving the loan he had any further contact with the Defendants regarding the loan or insurance. ¶ 8. The second loan was on January 16, 1993. Ellis was unsure who solicited him but he alleged that it was either Defendant Andrus or Boleware. This loan was wholly separate from the 1991 loan, which at this time was paid off. During his deposition, Ellis stated that he wanted credit insurance in case something happened to him and that is why he accepted it. There was no testimony that after receiving the loan he had any further contact with the Defendants regarding the loan or insurance.