Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bowman v. American Fidelity General Agency, Inc., 18-0100-KD-MU. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama Number: infdco20190104649 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE , Chief District Judge . After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made (docs. 49, 51, 52), the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l)(B) and dated November 15, 2018 (doc. 42), is ADOPTED in part 1 as the opinion of this Court, as follows: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as it relates to Plaintiff Arabella Shee
More

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made (docs. 49, 51, 52), the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated November 15, 2018 (doc. 42), is ADOPTED in part1 as the opinion of this Court, as follows:

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as it relates to Plaintiff Arabella Sheehan.

The Court declines to adopt Section D of the Conclusions of Law in the Report and Recommendation wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that the claims of Plaintiffs Stephanie Bowman, Sabrina Scott, Roseanne Wiggins and Crystal Hanna should not be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds (doc. 42, p. 18-20).

The Court agrees with Defendant's objection regarding tolling of the statute of limitations (doc. 49, p. 8-18) and adopts it as the reasoning of the Court. Plaintiffs have a duty under Alabama law to read their policy. Clearly, the policy does not include the long-term care rider. There is no dispute that Plaintiff received their policy more than two years before filing suit. Thus, these four plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the savings clause in Ala. Code § 6-2-3, which extends the statute of limitation because the allegation that "the policies do not contain clear language that the long-term care coverage was being cancelled" is insufficient to plausibly show that defendant concealed information that was entirely under its control.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part as to the claims of Bowman, Scott, Wiggins and Hanna, and otherwise DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. A district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer