Prince v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., No. 4741.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | KONDUROS, J. |
| Citation | 390 S.C. 166,700 S.E.2d 280 |
| Parties | Donald M. PRINCE, Appellant, v. LIBERTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 4741. |
| Decision Date | 22 September 2010 |
390 S.C. 166
700 S.E.2d 280
Donald M. PRINCE, Appellant,
v.
LIBERTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
No. 4741.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard March 2, 2010.
Decided Sept. 22, 2010.
John Eagle Miles, of Sumter and John S. Nichols, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Kevin Kendrick Bell, of Columbia, for Respondent.
KONDUROS, J.
In this dispute over the termination of a life insurance policy, Donald M. Prince, the beneficiary and owner of the policy, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Liberty Life Insurance Company, finding the statute of limitations barred the action. Prince argues his cause of action as beneficiary could not have accrued until the insured died and the fact that he is also the owner of the policy does not change that. We affirm.
In 1986, Prince obtained an insurance policy in the amount of $100,000 on the life of his brother from Argus Life Insurance Company. The following year, Prince took out a second policy in the amount of $800,000 on the life of his brother from Argus. Prince was the owner and beneficiary under both
policies. Liberty subsequently assumed the billing, collection, and claims payment responsibilities for both policies.
In June 1997, Prince mailed Liberty checks to pay the premiums for each policy. 1 On July 1, 1997, Liberty sent Prince a letter returning both checks and stating both policies lapsed in 1996; the $100,000 policy had lapsed because it lost all value once it was overloaned, and the $800,000 policy lapsed for nonpayment of premiums. After a series of correspondence between Liberty and Prince, Liberty brought a declaratory judgment action in 1999 against Prince and a creditor/assignee of the $800,000 policy pertaining only to that policy. Prince counterclaimed for reinstatement of the policy, asserting Liberty had failed to properly notify him the policy was about to lapse. Prince ultimately prevailed, and Liberty reinstated his policy after he paid the back premiums.
On February 3, 2003, Prince requested Liberty reinstate the $100,000 policy as well. Liberty refused to reinstate the policy, informing Prince the statute of limitations had expired on any claim regarding the policy. On August 6, 2003, Prince's brother died. On December 7, 2005, Prince brought a cause of action against Liberty contending it wrongfully terminated the $100,000 policy and seeking reinstatement of the policy upon payment of back premiums. Liberty answered contending the statute of limitations had run, barring the claim.
On February 21, 2009, Liberty moved for summary judgment asserting the statute of limitations barred the action. Liberty also maintained the claim was a compulsory counterclaim in the action regarding the $800,000 policy and Prince's failure to raise the claim during that cause of action waived the claim. Prince opposed summary judgment arguing his cause of action as beneficiary did not exist until his brother died in 2003, and thus, the statute of limitations did not bar his cause of action filed in 2005.
Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted Liberty summary judgment solely on the ground the statute of limitations had lapsed. The court found Prince's cause of action accrued no later than July 1997. The trial court found
because Prince's claim as owner of the policy was barred once the statute of limitations expired in 2000, when the insured died in 2003, Prince had no benefits to convey to himself as beneficiary. This appeal followed.
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite the disposition of cases not requiring the services of a fact finder. George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874 (2001). When reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, this court applies the
same standard that governs the trial court under Rule 56(c), SCRCP; summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002). In determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sauner v. Pub. Serv. Auth. of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Boeing Co., Civil Action No. 2:18-02574-RMG-MGB
...of action arises from the wrongful conduct." Id. at 627 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Prince v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 390 S.C. 166, 700 S.E.2d 280, 282 (Ct. App. 2010) (applying the discovery rule to breach of contract claim). To determine whether the injured party knew ......
-
In re TD Bank, N.A., Civil Action No.: 6:15-MN-2613-BHH
...several states apply the "discovery rule" to at least some of Plaintiffs' causes of action. See, e.g., Prince v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 700 S.E.2d 280, 282 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010) (holding thatPage 71 the discovery rule applies to breach of contract claims in South Carolina, and stating, "Unde......
-
Lyons v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., Appellate Case No. 2013–002137.
...S.C. 360, 363, 468 S.E.2d 645, 647 (1996). "The discovery rule applies to breach of contract actions." Prince v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 390 S.C. 166, 169, 700 S.E.2d 280, 282 (Ct.App.2010). "Pursuant to the discovery rule, a breach of contract action accrues not on the date of the breach, b......
-
Moore v. Benson, No. 4745.
...3 VI. Punitive Damages The Bensons argue the master erred in awarding punitive damages because there were no actual damages. We agree.700 S.E.2d 280 [15] [16] Punitive damages may only be awarded upon an underlying finding of actual damages. Keane v. Lowcountry Pediatrics, 372 S.C. 136, 148......
-
Baker v. Boeing Co., Civil Action No. 2:18-02574-RMG-MGB
...of action arises from the wrongful conduct." Id. at 627 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Prince v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 390 S.C. 166, 700 S.E.2d 280, 282 (Ct. App. 2010) (applying the discovery rule to breach of contract claim). To determine whether the injured party knew ......
-
In re TD Bank, N.A., Civil Action No.: 6:15-MN-2613-BHH
...several states apply the "discovery rule" to at least some of Plaintiffs' causes of action. See, e.g., Prince v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 700 S.E.2d 280, 282 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010) (holding thatPage 71 the discovery rule applies to breach of contract claims in South Carolina, and stating, "Unde......
-
Lyons v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., Appellate Case No. 2013–002137.
...S.C. 360, 363, 468 S.E.2d 645, 647 (1996). "The discovery rule applies to breach of contract actions." Prince v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 390 S.C. 166, 169, 700 S.E.2d 280, 282 (Ct.App.2010). "Pursuant to the discovery rule, a breach of contract action accrues not on the date of the breach, b......
-
Moore v. Benson, 4745.
...3 VI. Punitive Damages The Bensons argue the master erred in awarding punitive damages because there were no actual damages. We agree.700 S.E.2d 280 [15] [16] Punitive damages may only be awarded upon an underlying finding of actual damages. Keane v. Lowcountry Pediatrics, 372 S.C. 136, 148......