Opinion ID: 479859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: who should determine commencement of statute of limitations

Text: 25 Ramp also argues that the question of when the statute of frauds commenced to run is an issue for the trier of fact, and should not be decided by the court on a motion for summary judgment. Ramp cites to two Alabama cases holding that this issue is a question of fact which should be decided by the jury. See Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Griffin, 493 So.2d 1379 (Ala.1986); Wilson v. Draper, 406 So.2d 429 (Ala.1981). 26 A proper reading of Alabama law, however, reveals that no such per se rule exists. If the facts regarding the discovery of the fraud are in dispute, it clearly would be up to the jury to determine when the statute of limitations commenced to run. However, if the facts regarding the discovery issue are uncontroverted and show that the discovery occurred more than one year prior to the bringing of the suit, summary judgment is proper. Gonzales v. U-J Chevrolet Co., 451 So.2d 244, 247 (Ala.1984). Moreover, in Sexton v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 405 So.2d 18 (Ala.1981), a case cited by Ramp in support of another proposition, the Alabama Supreme Court explicitly stated that under certain circumstances the time of discovery of fraud can be determined as a matter of law. 405 So.2d at 21. 27 Thus, Alabama law allows the court to decide the statute of limitations question where the facts regarding the discovery of the fraud are not in dispute. Because we hold that Ramp should have discovered the alleged fraud at or shortly after the time it received the policy, the only facts relevant to the statute of limitations issue are whether and when Ramp received its copy of the insurance policy. These facts are uncontroverted in this case, therefore it was proper for the trial court to determine as a matter of law that the statute of limitations had already run. 28 AFFIRMED.