Opinion ID: 1835519
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether atco's claim is barred by the statute of limitations

Text: ¶ 14. This Court uses a de novo standard of review when passing on questions of law. Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Curtis, 678 So.2d 983, 987 (Miss.1996). ¶ 15. Ellis argues ATCO's claim to the interpleaded funds is barred by the statute of limitations because ATCO failed to file suit against Tuggle within three years of the date of the accident. ¶ 16. A time line of the events will be helpful in addressing the statute of limitations question. August 14, 1993 Griffin's accident May 4, 1995 Declaratory Judgment suit by ATCO March 26, 1996 Insurance funds interpleaded by Tuggle August 8, 1996 Ellis sues Tuggle August 14, 1996 Three year statute of limitations ends ¶ 17. Both parties have ignored the determinative factor for the statute of limitations question. In its declaratory judgment suit filed March 4, 1996, ATCO asked for a declaration of the rights and obligations of all parties. This proceeding was brought well within three years of the date of the accident. This action was appropriate since ATCO had paid Griffin's medical expenses, but had not obtained a subrogation agreement from Ellis. By asking for a declaratory judgment, ATCO asserted its rights to any funds paid to Ellis for Griffin's medical expenses. ATCO did so within the three year statute of limitations and thus is not barred from collecting any funds paid to Ellis under the subrogation agreement. ¶ 18. For this reason, Ellis's claim that ATCO's right to the interpleaded funds is barred by the statute of limitations has no merit.